Hense,+Ellen

I was involved in high school speech and debate for four years, and debate for three of them. I spent most of my senior year debating on the national circuit; I debated for Pflugerville HS and am the current LD consultant for Hendrickson HS.

I think that debate is about the debaters more so than the judge, and will try to intervene as little as possible. Very few things in this paradigm are things that I am stuck on (I underlined the stuff that I am) Most of this is just a starting point for how I view debate.


 * Short version:**

As I debater I ran cases that were typically based in topic lit, and I will probably enjoy judging a debate about the topic over anything else. (Kinda sad that I had to say that, but there you go) Speed is fine. __Label prestandards as prestandards in your first speech if you expect me to vote on them__, and don’t be offensive. I default to truth testing.


 * Long Version:**

Theory: Theory debate is the most technical you can get in a debate round, and if theory is being run I expect both debaters to be very specific on the line by line issues, and that is how I will vote. I hold theory to the explicit text of the interpretation, that means I evaluate “I meets” based on the semantics of the interpretation. Unless you justify reasonability I view turns to standards as terminal defense if there is no counter interpretation being offered. I am fine with RVIs (for both debaters) and I default to competing interpretations. Both of those can easily change if an argument is made in the round for why I should view things differently. __I wont evaluate arguments about behaviors that happened out side of the round__ ie: disclosure theory, I dont feel comfortable voting a particular way inside of a round based on something that happened out side of it. Additionally these debates tend to become personal, awkward, and sometimes it is impossible for me to verify that the out of round behavior actually happened.

Kritiks: If you are reading crazy pomo you have to slow down, if I don’t understand the way the argument functions, and what the warrants are by the end of your first speech, I’m not going to vote on it. Also, I think that a K needs to have some kind of “role of the ballot” or framework established. I have a pretty high threshold for K’s but I like a good K debate

Plans/CP/DA: These debates are fun, and I enjoy judging them, but again Counter-Plans and Dis-Ads have to have some link to the ballot/framework established. If you just concede to your opponent’s framework that’s fine, there just has to be some link from winning the counterplan and winning the round that is established. Please don’t read Counter Plans that don’t negate i.e.: permissibility topics.

Skep: Skep is fine; I actually enjoy good (as in original) skep debates. __Arguments that say I should reject skep because it is morally reprehensible are silly. If one debater says morality doesn’t exist, then it doesn’t make sense to reject arguments as morally reprehensible absent reasons why morality exists.__

Arguments asking for intervention: __These make me pretty uncomfortable, and I’ll be hesitant to grant you that intervention is good, and if you do win that I should intervene based on how I feel, be prepared for me not to intervene in your favor.__

Other things you should probably know__: I expect full extensions, claim warrant and impact__. I will call for cards, but not very often, If I do it’s because I feel like I would have to intervene anyways and Id prefer to intervene in a way that is the most consistent with what your authors say. Additionally if something is read in the AC, not extended in the 1AR but then extended in the 2 AR as offense, I wont vote on it. Negatives dont have that opportunity and cant respond to your extension of the argument.

Speaker points: Things that will get you higher speaks: I LOVE cx, please be engaging Crystallization and big picture analysis If you are funny, smart, or friendly during the course of the round I appreciate debaters that seem like they like debate, and act like they care about what they are saying.

__If you got below a 26, its because you were offensive, and I’ll write on the ballot what you said to cause the low speaks.__

Asking questions after the round is fine; I think debate should be educational and that RFDs are where people learn the most. If you don’t like my decision, I probably don’t either.

If you have any other questions, ask me. If you are going to run some “crazy” argument and aren’t sure how I am going to interpret it PLEASE ASK, otherwise we might both be in an uncomfortable position at the end of the round.

I really enjoyed my time in debate and I hope that you do as well!