Poapst,+Jackie

About me:
I’m a fourth year policy varsity debater at Liberty University…and I guess that’s all you care about. I know you work hard at debate so I will work hard to be your judge…Now here are some helpful hints for debating in front of me:

Evaluation:
I evaluate the round in the paradigm that is provided by me by the debaters. However, if no framework is set for the debate, I will default policy. IE how many bodies? If you win an argument I will vote on it, I don’t care if it’s dumb, or smart, or a bad idea in my opinion (there are a couple exceptions, I will get to those later). I will vote on anything from Wipeout to Aspec. However, one thing you have to keep in mind is that winning may be harder if I don’t understand what you are talking about. To make this simple: if you are reading some insane affirmative that opens space, breaks apart difference, ruptures the community, etc. Explain how the heck this goes down please. There must be clash in order for me to vote, and explanation of how positions interact with one another is key to clash. Ergo, if I do not understand what your aff does, clash kind of goes away. For novices, this means explanation is very important. Tag line extensions are not welcome and make me sad and you sad when you see your speaker points. Warrant extrapolation make me happy and make you happy when you see your speaker points.

Things I won’t vote for:
1. RVI’s-if you have to resort to an rvi to win you did not do the better debating in the round 2. Endorsing violence (this doesn’t apply to saying you beat some team at wipeout), but rather alternatives that mean I as the judge must endorse killing people as some sort of violent revolution. My ballot in performance rounds not only signifies the winner, but also the project that I believe should be endorsed, and violence is not one I feel should be endorsed.

Topicality:
Comes first. I default to competing interpretations, because I believe that topicality debates are good and educational and provide awesome clash, which makes me happy. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t say “reasonability,” but it may be a good idea to not bank your strat on that argument. To win on either side on topicality you must impact the reasons your interpretations are good and how they affect debate. I think limits/predictability/fairness/ground are the best standards. Education is pretty nonunique because you learn no matter what you are talking about. Topical education is a little better, but again, not as good as limits/predictability/fairness/ground since those affect your ability to win the round. Because I believe that debate is a game, if the affirmative severely shifts the aff/neg ability to win, then the game is skewed and unfair.

Theory:
Cheap shots on cheap shots are awesome. Dropped theory is probably drop the team, because you get 100% risk of the theory violation, unless it’s cp theory and the negative wins conditionality good in which case they can kick it or I will just reject the CP. I evaluate theory on an offense/defense paradigm, and you wouldn’t drop an extinction impact or a kritikal ontology impact now would you? Abuse in the round is much more persuasive than no abuse. I also think that the argument “reject the arg not the team, because there is no in round abuse,” if true, is rather persuasive. I believe that if they run a counterplan conditionally and go for it in the end, the aff should usually suck it up and debate. However, once again, if you are winning on conditionality, have at it.

NOTE: Topicality comes before theory. If the neg wins topicality and drops theory I will still vote on topicality because any theoretical problems that arose in the round were because your plan cheated by not being topical.

Counterplans:
Are awesome. The trickier, the better. I’m okay with most of them, but believe that the action of the CP must be clearly explained at least in the 2NC. I don’t vote on something if I don’t know what my ballot would be advocating. Therefore, I severely hate when I must pull the counterplan text after round to see what you do. Process CPs were my bread and butter when I was a 2N, but I’m not really biased either way. Consultation cp’s are probably horrible for debate, but I understand that they are necessary at times. Nevertheless, be ready for the theory mess that comes with these CPs.

Disadvantages:
Wonderful. They make me happy. Disadvantages versus case debates are some of the most interesting 2NR’s I have ever seen. I love politics disads, I think they are educational in many ways. However, I can be persuaded by arguments such as “there is no way that an international plan like the affirmative would spill over into affecting the president’s political capital for domestic issues.” Because, simply, in so many situations the spillover link just does not make sense. There is a such thing as 100% no link or arguments like that, I do not fall into the judging category that thinks there is always a risk of a disad.

Kritiks:
I was a hegemony, politics and topicality debater. That said, I am not adverse to the kritik. However, I often find that the way they operate is incredibly abusive. I will vote on the kritik. A forewarning would be that I am not very knowledgeable of the literature, so if you are reading some crazy psychobabble nonsense make sure you explain it clearly (couple of exceptions, I am familiar with religious based, capitalism, state based, environmental, and feminism kritiks). I also often find the debating style of most critical debaters to be extremely frustrating. The best way to debate a kritik in front of me is to read slower and shorter tags in the 1NC and to shorten the overviews. I find most overviews too long and complicated. Most of that work should be done on the line-by-line. Also, debating a kritik like you would a disad with an alternative is pretty effective in front of me. Keep it clean. Explain the specific link to the plan then the impact. Then explain how the alternative solves, etc. Make me understand exactly what is happening. I am a pretty intelligent person, so I will follow you if you are being clear.

Critical Affirmatives:
Most of the time they are a little frustrating, just because they are never clearly explained. Your aff must do something, at least. I do like when critical affs engage the topic. I find that interesting and usually a happy medium. Don’t get me wrong, I vote on who wins the argument so framework v. critical aff that engages the topic is still an option for the negative. Look at my Kritik views to get more ideas, but once again go slower on the tags so I can get what you are talking about. There is nothing worse than figuring out what the affirmative does in the 1AR-2AR.

Project Teams:
If this is your style, I do have to say that I find these debates some of the more laid back and fun rounds that I have seen. I will vote for you if you win your advocacy. I will vote on framework if they win that you are cheating. I like when your project has something to do with the topic, and this gets you more leverage on framework arguments. Something I want to point out though is that the negative is not your enemy. Please be cordial. I understand that when debating personal advocacies, emotions can get involved but don’t let that govern the way you treat the other team. I think having debates about who has been oppressed more might be problematic because I don’t think that I personally can eliminate someone’s voice in favor of another person’s voice. So be careful that your debate doesn’t turn into that.

Flowing:
I flow. No, seriously…I flow. I flow on separate sheets of paper/excel sheets. I will not change that. You screw up the flows and I will be angry. However, there is one exception to this. If both teams ask for me not to flow, I will not flow. But, if one team asks me not to flow and the other team says no, I will defer to the team who wants me to flow. Also, If you are unclear, I will say CLEAR very loudly ONCE. After that, I will not flow anything I don’t understand and will not evaluate it. My philosophy is, if you did not care that I could not understand you, I do not care that I didn’t flow your argument. Therefore, if you chose not to give a position enough air time, don’t be upset if it’s not on my flow and I don’t vote for it. It was your decision to only spend three seconds at top speed on your “winning argument.” Slightly a long explanation of that, but I just wanted to make that clear before I go on.

Speeches:
Cross Ex: KEY part of the round. I flow cross ex. You can make positions look extremely unviable in cross ex in front of me. Just bring those applications into the speeches. Your cross ex’s will greatly impact your speaker points. I am not a big fan of extensive use of tag team cross ex, but if there is a specific question you need to ask, go ahead. However, the answering of most of the questions should be done by the actual person getting cross-exed. My philosophy is, only intervene if your partner’s answer would LOSE you the round. Once the buzzer goes off for end cross ex, I will only listen to one more question—after that you are abusing cross ex.

Rebuttals: These are the key part of the round. This is where the most impact calculus and comparison MUST be done. Show what offense you have in the round and how this interacts with the opposing side’s best offense.

1AR: new arguments in the 1AR are frowned upon. I track arguments through speeches after the round, so if it is new it will be crossed out from my flow-but 2NR’s should also flag new arguments (if they are actually new).

Your Decorum:
1. Debating should be fun. If you are having fun, I am probably having fun. Partner dynamics are very important. Fighting with your partner is worse than fighting with the other team and really kills your ethos. 2. Don’t call the other team bad names. Calling an opponent “stupid” or “retarded” will probably get you half the speaker points allotted in the round (ie. 50 if it is on a 100 point scale). Ad homs are not funny nor welcome. Don’t get me wrong though, if they make a bad argument, flag it as a bad argument just don’t be a jerk about it. 3. Cursing is also not welcome. Debate is an oral activity designed to make you better speakers. Most of the time cursing just makes you look like an idiot who has no idea what to say so you instead throw an expletive in every other word in hopes that it will connect with me on some weird level. It won’t. I will deduct 1 speaker point for every curse word that you say in the round. 4. Music before round: Please do not play offensive music. Don’t confuse me, I love music. I do not mind if you play it before round, and actually encourage it, but I HATE music that degrades women. I also do not get rid of grudges very easily and do not want this to affect the way I perceive you.

My Decorum:
I am extremely expressive during round and you should use this to your advantage. I nod my head when I agree and I get a weird/confused/annoyed face when I disagree I also love to interact with the debaters during the round. I do not want to be the distant god in the back of the room who hovers over your debating. If you are about to drop something, I will probably call time out for you. If you ask a good cross ex question, I may say good question. If you are being a jerk, I will probably tell you to stop being a jerk.

Speaker Points:
I would consider myself pretty average 0-you did something obscenely offensive and I told you during the round what it was 15 (50)-you did something offensive and you found out after the round what it was 25-26.5 (70-75) Major problems need to be fixed, whether that be technical, social, etc. 27-27.5 (76-84) Medium ground for your division, I see potential for continued improvement. 28 (85-90) Average to above average. No major technical mistakes and good execution over all. 28.5-29 (91-95)-Very good debating. Above average in your division. I enjoyed listening to you. Great execution and delivery overall. Probably the best debater I heard in that round. 29.5 (96-99) -I was extremely impressed. Probably the best debater I heard in that division at that tournament. 30 (100) -There is always something you can do better. This will be awarded to what I consider the best debater I expect to hear that year.

Things that will lose you speaker points: 1. Saying something was conceded when it wasn’t 2. Conceding something 3. Going for a Kritik really badly 4. Not doing line by line debate 5. Being any of the following in Cross ex: a jerk, dumb, unresponsive, or a person who doesn’t use all their cross ex time. 6. Trying to go faster than you really can 7. Being unclear 8. Not using all your speech time 9. Not being passionate about what you are doing, whether that be reading your narrative or reading your politics disad. 10. Being unstrategic (like putting your offense last, or going for the wrong thing—or everything—in the 2NR) All in all, debate is a game and games should be fun. So play your game and do what you do. Ultimately, I should not govern what you do to debate- you should just be good at what you do.

Peace.

Jackie