Kirkscey,+Eleanor

I debated 4 years in high school, and this is my first year judging. A few things you should know:  1. Since true tabula rasa judges do not exist, I consider myself a policy maker who will vote on just about anything you tell me to. So please provide me with voters.  2. I am generally a pretty high flow judge, so road maps and signposting are essential. If my flow is muddy, I find it harder to vote on the flow, and I would rather not intervene. If you stay organized, I won’t have to deal with this problem.  3. I am fine with spreading; however, I will not flow your speech if I find it hard to follow. If I cannot understand you, I will say “clear,” but if you ignore me, it will be a wasted speech. I cannot flow if you aren’t speaking clearly enough for me to comprehend what you are saying and probably won’t try too hard after two or three warnings.  4. Do not just shadow extend arguments. You need to pull across warrants and impacts, not just the author and year. 5. I would rather vote on an impact turn than defense. For example, if you can somehow prove that the DA impacts of nuclear war are good, so be it.  6. Don't be snarky or abusive during CX. Also, if there’s open CX, do not take over your partner’s CX. I understand that you sometimes need to say something during your partner’s CX, but let her/him do most of the talking. Specific arguments: DAs--I like most DAs. However, I would have to put politics DAs at the bottom of my list. I find that most politics DAs have an internal link that is lacking, and for those of you who run political capital versions, I think it is a stretch to say that the Aff plan would have to be pushed by the president. But I will certainly vote on a politics DA if I have to. I would rather hear a DA debate with both offense and defense on the flow; just keep track of your turns. I will only vote on you double turning yourself if the other team points it out or I am forced to vote on the flow alone.

Counterplans--I’m fine with CPs and CP theory. But don’t bother running conditionality if you do not plan on kicking the CP. The theory debate of condo good vs. bad, when it isn’t even used in the round, is a time suck. Topicality--I find that T is just a procedural argument in most rounds, so I will only vote on it if you give clear links and impacts. “Half-baked” T shells are one of my pet peeves. Don’t bother running a T if you haven’t even bothered to completely structure the argument. Kritiks--I am fine with them just do not assume that I know as much about the literature you reference as you do. I ran a few Ks in high school and can follow them, but I never spent much time immersed in K theory. As long as the advocacy is clear, we should be fine. I will certainly take framework arguments into consideration, and just because I am a policy maker does not mean that I am biased towards policy impacts I understand the need for both policy and criticism and thus my vote could go either way.

Theory--Do not just list off theory arguments. They deserve time and warrants just like every other type of argument. Theory should have a clear link and impact; otherwise, it is just like you are reading a card without providing a reason why I should consider your evidence.

If you have any questions feel free to ask me.