Atkison,+Jamie

Experience in debate: Debated 3 years on the High School circuit, debating for KCKCC in the 2015-2016 season.

Most of my philosophy is going to center around Brian Box's and Izak Dunn's philosophies - so if you're just wanting more to read for some reason, go check out what they think about debate. I align pretty significantly with them.

__**General stuff about the debate:**__ Debate is about reading, hard work, and having fun. I will work hard as your judge.

 "STOP READING DIRECTLY INTO THE COMPUTER SCREEN. Please, angle the computer or stand so that I can see your face when you talk. I am now more convinced than ever that I shouldn't make an effort to flow debaters who do not care about the quality of their presentation.

Clarity is much more important to me than most other judges. If I cannot understand you, I will stop flowing and severely lower your points. I will give you two fair and clear warnings, but I will not go out of my way to make sure I have all of your arguments - that is your job.

Speaker points are a combination of quality of arguments, cross-ex, perceived level of preparation for the debate/if you are well read, and your presentation. If I think a team is good enough to clear at a tournament, I will make sure it is not my fault that they miss out on points." - TheRealBrianBox

Cross-ex: This is the time to get your questions all out of the way so that I don't hear "they didn't specify" in your speeches. Be funny, clever, or aggressive if appropriate. More importantly, respect the people you are debating. I will not tolerate bullying (aggression is fine, personal aggression is not).

I've been told recently that I have a bad habit of nodding when judging rounds. This has helped me realize my different habits and what they mean, so allow me to clarify: - If I nod, it means that I understand what you are saying. If you are explaining a concept and I feel like you are wasting speech time, I'll probably make eye contact and nod as a means of telling you to move on. If I nod during cross-ex that does not mean that you stop asking questions, it just means that I understand what you are saying. Make sure the other team understands you before you move on. - If I check my computer at all, it will be during prep time. I am not the kind of judge who will tweet about the round or anything else related to social media. I think this is disrespectful towards the debaters I am judging and I hate that some judges don't keep their full attention on you. - Your prep time is exactly that: yours. If you want to ask clarification questions about arguments in prep - I am more than fine with that. - As said above, I will tell you twice to be clearer. If I sound aggravated, don't take it personally. I believe that it is important that I understand your arguments - something that I cannot do if you aren't being clear.

__**Short Version: **__  - I have judged a limited number of rounds on the topic - I spend most of my time working with UDL's and rural teams and making sure they have the resources to debate. - I prefer fewer arguments that go into depth than a ton of shallow arguments. If you're fast and clear, I'll reward your speaks, but do not use those skills to read a ton of off-case arguments and not answer the case. - I will always call for evidence if you want me to. I will make the note and be sure that I am striving to work as hard as you are in the round. I respect the debaters that I judge, and I expect you to respect me as well. That said, I will not make arguments for you, but I will always try my best to do what you want me to do. - I am much more qualified to judge rounds with kritiks in them. My "perfect/ideal" round is a "non-traditional" debate between two teams who agree on an issue but present different methods for approaching it. I enjoy clashes of methodology, poetry, music, art, story-telling, sequencing, and authors. Do work. Be well read. - I don't like cheap shots, and I view them as disrespectful towards the individuals you are debating with. Plan flaws, all of the "Spec" arguments, and etc. are justifications for questioning in CX or pre-round. Make the debate interesting. I don't like bullshit "tricks" that don't showcase how intelligent you are as a debater. Make debate better. - Framework: I base my framework questions on the presentation of the 1AC. If the Aff is "Fear the Abject" with some Kristeva cards, I'll evaluate the round accordingly. If the 1AC is USFG action with extinction impacts, I'll assume that I'm roleplaying as a Utilitarian policy maker. You be you, I'll adapt. Argue what you are passionate about. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; color: #000000; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline;">- I enjoy eye-contact. A lot. I enjoy debaters who respect me and give me enough time to flow their T-shells and theory arguments. Give me plentiful time to flow = I'll give your arguments plentiful consideration when I make a decision. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; color: #000000; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline;">- I prefer that you argue within the time limits. That ensures that debate continues to happen and continues to be accessible. If I'm judging you in Finals or something, then I am much more likely to give you some leeway and do what you want to do. I am always willing to fight for the debaters who make debate a better space, just make sure that you are making it one. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; color: #000000; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline;">- The reality that I have accepted is that I must render a decision at the end of the round. This means that one team wins, and the other loses. I'm sorry if this seems unfair, I'm just being honest. I think rendering a decision allows debate to continue and that is my obligation.

__<span style="background-color: #fefefe; color: #000000; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline;">**Meta-Philosophy:** __

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; color: #000000; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline;">I am more qualified to judge kritik debates - it's the literature I've been focusing on for both my debate and academic career - but that does not mean that you have to run a K for me to be a good judge for you. I will be happy to respect your arguments and evaluate what you want me to.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; color: #000000; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline;">My favorite debates come down to clashes between methods. I enjoy "author vs. author" debates. I enjoy clashes of specific arguments on the flow - I dislike when people ignore each other's arguments. I prefer fast debate to slow debate, but **__I expect more experienced teams to cater to less-experienced opponents.__** Our job as debaters is to encourage participation, not to scare away participants. You will get accommodating speaker points if you slow down for novices. Make debate an accessible and viable home for people.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; color: #000000; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline;">Read warrants in your evidence. Complete sentences are how people speak: that includes nouns, verbs, and prepositions. I prefer longer tags that explain your argument than short tags with long cards that are blazed through. Tagging a card as "Extinction" is not sufficient.

__**<span style="background-color: #fefefe; color: #000000; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline;">In-depth stuff: **__ <span style="background-color: #fefefe; color: #000000; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline;">" First, I believe in the principle of noncontradiction, if only because I have to. I’m not so sure about the law of the excluded middle, but I can’t seem to think without the first, in any case. This is to say that I believe in the truth—I believe, for example, that “true” or well-articulated defense is enough to win Topicality (the eternal return of the “we meet”), and even a disad or kritik (though I do think that the CP has the advantage, for the negative, of forcing the debate into an offense/defense paradigm). On the other hand, I feel that the arguments as to why Competing Interpretations are Good are persuasive, but articulating these reasons as “weigh T as a disad” is not smart in front of me, since I weigh good defense on disads conclusively. In other words, I believe in the principle of noncontradiction, not the offense/defense paradigm (though there are many situations where it certainly applies, if only for providing a clear and simple way for evaluating certain rounds).

Second...Verily, I hate bad kritik debates more than I hate bad "straight-up" debates, and bad "non-traditional" debates are the worst of them all (in other words, for kritik debaters and non-traditional debaters, there is no excuse)." - Izak Dunn

I also hate judging Cap-K's. I’m just joking (am I?).

"I believe in the debate. That is, I flow it, and I believe it occurs." You and I probably flow differently - so here are some things you need to know: - If your overview is big or small (whether I need a new sheet of paper to flow it) - "Group the debate" means very little to me, as I base my flows like a continuation of ideas. - "Circle _ on the flow/ Star this card because it's awesome" are good things to say to me. This provides accountability for me so that I know what exactly to call for after the round.

- Tell me where your arguments go. Signpost. Guide me through your arguments.

__**<span style="background-color: #fefefe; color: #000000; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline;">Specifics: **__

"I am not a fan of framework arguments. You have almost no chance of proving to me that the neg kritik/aff kritical aff should not be allowed within debate. I think that position shuts down discussion and is frankly not a bit persuasive to me. This doesn't mean I'll kill your speaks if your read them, or that I'm guaranteed to vote against you, but I don't like your odds given that I think the team defending more argumentative inclusion is usually on the right side. Outside of that, framework debates to me are usually the debate about the debate, and they set the table for what link, impact, and alt arguments all mean. That means that if you're winning offense on a framework debate, then you should explain what winning that debate gets in terms of the debate as a whole. Doing that will make it alot easier for me to sort out the role of framework within the debate. If the K aff has a plan than you probably shouldn't go for FW- I don't see how having impact args outside of util is "extra topical", and I don't think it's implied by the resolution. For K teams that don't have a plan, or are clearly untopical, I can be persuaded relatively easily that you should defend the topic, and that having an advocacy text is a good thing. If you're going to go for those arguments, treat that debate more like an impact debate about the importance of the topic/advocacy texts, and less a theory debate, since I tend to believe the former is what is going on in regardless of if you stylistically present your argument like a topic/clash good DA or a traditional theory argument." - SK
 * <span style="background-color: #fefefe; color: #000000; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline;">Framework: **

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; color: #000000; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline;">I am not a fan of T-debates. I believe that the debate needs to be centered around the topic, but that does not necessitate USFG action. My favorite affs are those who make Resolution-specific/inspired affirmation statements. Have an advocacy.
 * Topicality:**

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; color: #000000; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline;">On the aff: I really, really want you to have some kind of affirmation statement/text. **I think reasonability is a good argument.** If you are making arguments about pedagogy and engagement, please recognize that debate also involves the two people that you are engaging with. Fairness is an illusion, but an important one to maintain. Do not try to write a squirrely aff in hopes that it can't be answered**,** that's not what debate is about. **__I__**__**t is not wise to run an argument like "uproot colonialist thought" without supplying an alternative in front of me. Make an a****ffir****mation, n****ot a** **negation.**__

On the neg: Honestly, I don't like your chances if you're going for T in the 2nr. That is not your fault - it's mine. The most persuasive T-arg that you can make as the neg is "Topical version of the plan." If you are a passionate T-debater, please guide me through the debate. I will do my best to be a good judge for you.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; color: #000000; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline;">If left to my own thoughts, I believe that the Negative is allowed a conditional CP and a conditional Kritik. Preferably, I want only two opposing worlds in the block. I usually give the 1AR a ton of leeway if the negative is performatively contradicting themselves out of the 1nr. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; color: #000000; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline;">Overall, I think that counterplans can be interesting. If this is the debate that you are comfortable with, you should know that I will have no problem judging you well.
 * __<span style="background-color: #fefefe; color: #000000; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline;">Counterplans/conditionality: __**

__**Other Theory****:**__ Slow down and give me time to flow.


 * __<span style="background-color: #fefefe; color: #000000; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline;">Disadvantages: __**

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; color: #000000; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline;">Honestly, I hate about 75% of disadvantages. If you are going to run one in front of me, make sure that it has an amazing and/or plausible link story. I want specific links. I give the aff a lot of leeway when they say that your link s/ have been triggered and etc. I think that DA's can be super fun arguments if they make sense, and I will be absolutely thrilled if you run something specific to the aff. I really love Politics DA's if they are specific, I think that this is a brilliant argument that goes unnoticed. If this is the debate you are comfortable with, I will be a good judge for you.

__**<span style="background-color: #fefefe; color: #000000; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline;">Kritiks: **__ These are the arguments that I am most familiar with. Whether that means "Link/Impact/Alternative" or something else that people would call "performative" (whatever that means). I have a high threshold when it comes to these arguments. Be yourself, argue what you want. If you are curious as to how much I know about a certain author or realm of thought, please ask me before the round so that I can be a better judge for you.

The last thing I want is for the debaters in the room to feel like my decision is unjustified.

If you have any other questions, feel free to email me at atkison.jamie@gmail.com or just ask me in person! I'm shy but friendly, and I love debate and the people who make it happen. You are always welcome to find me post-round and ask questions as well. I will do my best to help you in any way that I can. Good luck and be kind to one another.

-Jamie Atkison