Ehresman,+Katya

//IDK how to open this.. hello?! You are probably going to round or trying to do prefs so ill try to make this quick & straight forward :) FB message me or email me katyaaehresman@gmail.com if you have any questions before/after a round. My pronouns are she/her and I appreciate that you ask pronouns/provide a trigger warning (if needed) before rounds in all instances if possible. If you are having a problem during or before the round pls make me aware. (://

__Conflicts:__ Lake Travis, Edina KS & MK, Prosper JR, Dougherty Valley PC

I debated for Lake Travis High School in Austin, Tx qualifying to TFA, NSDA, and UIL State breaking at all 3 and had some national success at bid tournaments and round robins. This summer I taught at UNT, Baylor and PDI D.C. so despite being a FYO and looking like a weird 12 year old librarian I have experience judging. Above all else I love debate, the community, the potential that it has for change and the skills that it teaches. I really don't care what type of arguments you run in round as long as you have fun and are nice to one another (& me pls). I am more comfortable judging a K round over a dense tricks/theory or phil round but that doesn't mean I won't vote for those types of args. If you are winning a flow, even marginally, just tell me why you win and why that flow comes first. Basically, you do you but tell me why your way is the best way and **__//extend warrants!!!//__**. ALSO PLS don't pull out your backfiles and root cause/generic impact cards and expect to win every round. It's about how well you debate not how good your case is thats what its called debating instead of casing (lol) so be strategic, produce warranted clash and have fun. :)
 * TLDR;**

__update after judging a bit (10/12/17)__ Hi! So after getting used to judging more I have realized a few things; 1) I really vote on the flow 11 times out of 10. What this means for you is that if your 2AR/bottom of the 2NR writes my ballot for me, does the proper extensions/layering/impacts etc. not only are they more likely to get higher speaks but it is just more likely they win because I try to intervene as little as possible. 2) I guess a small caveat to point 1 is that I tend to look at the fw flow first (if no one does weighing on their own) and then see who wins fw first and then figure out what impacts are won under that fw. You may disagree with this, that's okay :) this is my default so if you want me to adjudicate in a different way then you need to tell me an order to evaluate things in. 3) I tend to be pretty visual with my facial expressions so if I make any form of face PLS don't be offended but also it means that you should probably keep fleshing out that argument. 4) please have some sort of delineation when you are moving on between cards or arguments.... I thought everyone did this but I have been sadly disappointed. :(

//__Quick checklist if you have me as your judge__//
 * I try to be tab. I will try to intervene as little as possible and will rely heavily on my flow to make my RFD for me. You should do the work weighing between arguments & between layers. If you don't then I will cry & have to intervene and you (& your coach) may not like that. Tell me what layer comes first in the last speech and why you are winning it.
 * Caveat to the intervention rule is that if you are sexist, racist, homophobic, ableist, academically dishonest or anything of the sort then I will intervene & drop you :3
 * I will say clear/slow/loud etc. as much as needed and won't drop speaks unless you ignore me.
 * You will get lower speaks if you are hostile/aggressive/condescending/rude to your opponent(s), partner or me and/or if you don't provide a trigger warning for a case should have had one.
 * You will get higher speaks if you are creative with your position, comforting to a younger debater (tbh just be nice to everyone though) and make good puns/jokes and unique strat choices. Having a lot of weighing/explicit framing will also get you higher speaks.
 * Prep ends when you finish compiling your speech doc. Don't stop prep but keep going between files to compile your speech doc. That is prepping. Flashing isn't prep but don't take 7 years to do it, rounds are already behind schedule yo.
 * Flex prep is chill & IDC if you sit, stand or use a stand (lol)
 * default tech > truth.
 * default competing interps but will evaluate reasonability if you win it.
 * default comparative worlds vs. truth testing but can be persuaded otherwise.
 * default drop the arg on theory, drop the debater on T.
 * default meta theory > theory and T/Theory on the same layer.
 * Explicitly extend theory interps, violations and some sort of impact if you are going for it.
 * Yes I want to be on the email chain, please add me katyaaehresman@gmail.com (I will try not to have the docs open in round since it could cause me to miss extemped args but it expedites the process of calling for evidence after the round).
 * Yes, K affs are fine - perform however you want.
 * Yes, I will vote on disclosure theory but I am also hesitant to give judges the ultimate power to fix issues that happen outside of round bc its not verifiable. Providing screenshots of the wiki etc. is good enough just verify the violation for me, I won't check to verify.
 * No, I don't have a default on if T/Theory comes before K. Make the args for me and I will evaluate them.

//__**LONG FLESHED OUT VERSION:**__//

//General:// This is easily my preferred style of debate and what I mostly ran during high school & coached at camps. You can run whatever K you want in front of me as long as you know it well enough to explain in rebuttals. I have probably read or ran most of the prominent K authors but don't be afraid to ask if I am comfortable/have any experience in a specific avenue of k lit. HOWEVER, I believe that K debate should be believed in and isn't just about strategy (i.e. don't run fem but be an aggressive, patriarchal dick outside of round). Gage Krause said it best "//if you are running a K purely because you read this/I’m in the back of the room, I would prefer that you run something else instead" (Krause 16).// I really love K debate and respect good K debaters so I will either A) hold you to a higher standard if you choose to run a K or B) know what to look for when you are running these positions and be nitpicky about good strategy. That being said, if you are looking to experiment with a position that you have never ran before, want to try out a K/performance/narrative/style etc, please don't be afraid to do so in front of me! I would love to talk to you about it after round!!!!!
 * Ks/K affs**

//K tech:// Ks should tell a story (another Krause quote). It shouldn't be a choppy messy of 'dehum bad' impact cards amongst pseudo-links about oppression. Ks are beautiful (when done correctly) but you neeeeeeeed to be able to explain the warrant of your links & impacts on.your.own! Weird side note but I am v persuaded by perf-cons on K flows.. making smart tech arguments like pointing out macro-level perf cons etc. would get you higher speaks. I think cap may be a perf-con in debate so i have a low-threshold for those forms of takeout arguments... also, Alt texts need to be well articulated methods - it shouldn't be just "brEAk doWn tHe hEGemOnIC iNteRNatiOnAL orDer" bc I don't know what this means, you don't know what this means, your opponent sure as heck doesn't know what that means and we all end up sad sacks by the end of the round. Similarly, perms should be well explained and developed. I really really dislike blippy 'perm the aff then neg' debates. However, I do like really tricky/funny/strategic perms - get creative! At camp my kids answered a deep ecology k by bringing a cup of dirt to the round & playing with it while they read. 6 blippy perms are worse than 2 well thought out perms, be strategic and make good arguments. Also, __Perms are tests of competitions not new advocacies!__ (They are just an extension of the aff world. My voting will consider perms as tests of competition unless told otherwise.)

//K affs:// I really have no dogmatic preference what an 'aff' is supposed to look like. You can draw, rap, sing, play music, sit in silence, stand in silence, yell, read poetry etc. for your 1AC as long as you justify your method IN THE 1AC and why this round is a necessary setting for said method. Experimentation with the boundaries of performance in debate is v cool and will get you higher speaks fosho. Don't shy away from your aff in rebuttals!!!! Not only will you get higher speaks if you creatively use your aff to answer T/DA/CP/Phil etc. but it is also more likely that your weighing will make it onto my ballot.

//OVERALL//: Explain what happens when I vote for you - what does the world of your alt/advocacy look like. __At the end of the round I need to know what happens when I circle aff/neg on the ballot and/or if the ballot still matters__. There should be some sort of method/mechanism in your advocacy.

You do you with this honestly fam. I am fine with any type of arg on this front just articulate it well & go slower on Texts. I really enjoy good LARP debate and strategic PICs & DAs. Biggest thing to remember is to WEIGHHH! DO SOMETHING! DON'T JUST READ IMPACT BACK FILES! There are plenty of cool/hip/fun/trendy/good args you can make when reading/answering LARP, make them pls. I am p easily persuaded by args like uniqueness controls the link & good impact defense. Extinction scenarios are getting stale so I have a lower threshold for defensive impact takeouts. LARP debate is really interesting and I learn a lot about the world through these rounds so please don't do it poorly.
 * LARP**

Topicality is so fun and strategic. Despite running mostly non-t affs, I really love a good T debate & will award high speaks for you doing it well. PLS flesh out warrants for your standards. ALSO ppl are getting v sloppy on paradigm issues/framing for each flow and this is heartbreaking. Fix it. Do better. This means that I expect some sort of impact being extended on T i.e. drop the debater or some sort of layering done in the 2N about why T comes first. I have a very low threshold for this extension but since i vote off arguments on my flow, this argument still needs to be extended.
 * T**

Same rules with warrants and implications apply to T and Theory. Slow down on interps. I am not a fan of frivolous theory (this is killing debate IMO) and will give you lower speaks if you run a silly shell when there was a more viable one that you could have ran. If you are a huge theory hack then I will not be the best judge for you but if there is substantive abuse then I am happy to evaluate the shell as long as its verifiable. Theory rounds are honestly really boring to me though so I would really only run it in front of me if your fairness or education is harmed in some way during the round. Also on theory you don't have to repeat their interp if you are just defending the converse - just be clear and slow.
 * Theory**

I am fine evaluating phil debates from the //VH1's Top 50 Old French Dudes in Philosophy// but I am honestly not the best judge for a dense phil round unless you can explain your warrants well. I have read my fair share of lit but it wasn't my favorite style of args. If this is yours niche and you really wanna run it (or you already prepped a 1NC doc lol and then saw me on pairings) then just make sure that you articulate warrants and explain why your preclusion/weighing args come first & what offense matters, don't just assume that I know it. The only thing that I ask (which would make the above rant easier) is that you just have some sort of standard text that tells me how to weigh under that fw.
 * Phil**

Pls no. This type of debate makes me cry. I think 4 min of spikes commodify the educational experience you get from debate and are a cheap shot to the ballot. If you do this type of strat your speaks won't necessarily be very good and then we will both be crying. I will ofc evaluate any argument on the flow but I would prefer not to evaluate these. I am okay at flowing quick analytics but you should go more slow on a wall of spikes than you would just breezing through cards to ensure that I get all of them. Make the arguments and I will vote off of it & if you are a really good tricks debater than I will try to be happy & learn stuff from your round but overall this is prob my least favorite type of debate. That being said, I do give higher speaks for good strategy - take that as you will.
 * Tricks**

I have only judged at camp tournaments so far this year but my I averaged speaks around 28.8 and I will normally stay about a 28.5-29 unless the round is absolutely abysmal. 30s aren't impossible but you have to work for it. I was never a big fan of people that were either super stingy or frivolously generous with 30s so I will do my best not to be either.
 * Speaks/Averages**

//__General breakdown of speaks:__// 30-29.5 -> I expect you to be in late elims 29.5-29 -> You should def break but there are some tech mistakes 29-28.5 -> You know what you are doing but have some problems with articulation. 28.5-28 -> There were issues with delivery and strategy but thats okay :) 28-27 -> :( 27-below -> :(( (likely problematic in some way)

I get how important speaks are so if this is your bubble round and you got jipped on speaks pls lemme know and ill try to be more lenient ;). That being said, my speaks will depend on the tournament (local vs. national) and the quality of the pool that I have judged. Ppl say I am a speak-fairy normally so lucky you I guess? lol

__My actual natcirc judging history__ I will try to keep my speaks average and aff/neg ratio on updated for each topic so you can get a better idea for my judging history -> heres the current link (inspired by the amazing Lawrence Zhou *fangirl*) https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1wahIDSwF6FlnquMom_zNapwmGv9Tz_KuZ4sx6aSxMc4/edit#gid=72931467