Stidham,+Jasmine

Updated for Education topic-

-Pronouns: she/her. I will default to using they/them if I don't know you.

-I debate for the University of Central Oklahoma- 4th year.

-Assistant Coach: Heritage Hall- 3 years. Previously coached at Edina High School.

-Lab leader: University of Michigan 7 Week Seniors Lab- 2 years.

-Have coached multiple teams to qualify to the TOC, am a 4x NDT qualifier, first round recipient, etc.

**Tldr: Flexibility**

-No judge will ever like all of the arguments you make, but I will always attempt to evaluate them fairly. I **highly value flexibility** from a coaching, judging, and debating perspective. **I appreciate judges who are willing to listen to positions from every angle, so I try to be one of those judges.** I have coached strictly policy teams, strictly K teams, and everything in between because I enjoy all aspects of the game. My predispositions about debate are not so much ideological as much as they are systematic, i.e. I don't care which set of arguments you go for, but I believe every argument must have a claim, warrant, impact, and a distinct application. I think "tech" matters. Dropping a bunch of arguments means your "truth" claims aren't so true anymore. Evidence quality matters a lot to me. Stop reading cards that don't have a complete sentence and get off my lawn. I strive to be as non-interventionist as possible. I like judge instruction. It makes my life easier, makes your life easier, and means that in messy debates I will look for the path of least resistance to make my decision because I absolutely loathe judge intervention.

-Yes, I have judged many rounds on this topic.

-Please don't read into my personal argumentative choices too much. I promise it really doesn't matter. Debate is about you, not me. Policy teams: you don't have to be scared just because I dabbled in ~K goo~ for a year. K teams: you don't have to be scared just because I gave the camp-wide framework lecture. My goal as a judge is for everyone to feel comfortable having me in the back of the room, to evaluate the debate to the best of my ability and help you improve, regardless of the argument. The predispositions I have listed below are my general heuristics when I approach making a decision, but I will ultimately vote for the team who wins their argument, even if it strays from these conventions.

**Topicality**: I actually enjoy a good T debate. Everyone needs to have evidence that has the intent to define whatever word/phrase is being contested. Evidence that offhandedly mentions how one rando decided to define 'education' doesn't cut the mustard.

**Theory**: My only predisposition is that I tend to think conditionality is okay. I would not advise you to go all in on "condo bad" in front of me, but reading your "condo bad" block is probably still a good time trade-off for you. Yes, I have voted on condo bad before. If you debate the argument well I am sure I will vote for you. **Random note based on recent trends:** just because an aff is new does not mean the neg is automatically able to get away with murder in terms of condo/other shenanigans. I think it's totally reasonable that **the neg should get some flexibility** in these situations, but if your answer to 2AC theoretical objections is just "you broke a new aff, we get to do whatever we want" I'm not 100% with you- just answer the argument like you normally would.

**Framework:** I vote for framework and I vote against it. I judge a lot of "clash" debates and I'm probably even in terms of my voting record. Affs should have a counter interpretation/model of debate that they think is desirable. I am less likely to vote aff solely on impact turns because I really need to know what the aff's 'vision of debate' looks like compared to the neg. I understand that going HAM on impact turns is sometimes more strategic, so if that's really your style **you should stick to it**, but you must contextualize those impact turns to whatever DAs the neg is going for and you must do comparative impact work. **I find myself voting neg a lot just by virtue of the aff never doing impact calculus.** Unpersuaded by the argument that topical versions should have to solve literally everything ever in an 8 minute speech. Judge instruction is extremely important in these debates- please **tell me what to evaluate first**. Im fine with any 'flavor' of framework- procedural fairness, skillz, deliberative democracy, etc. Do your thing. The neg needs to explain how the TVAs access the aff's general theory/scholarship, what those affs look like, and how it (could) resolve the aff's impact turns.

**Critical affirmatives (no plan):** Beyond what I have said about framework, there are a couple things you can do to make sure we're on the same page. First, I need you to answer the question of "but what do you doooo tho?!" even though that question seems obsolete. I don't need a 5 minute overview explaining every part of the aff. I really just need to know what I am voting for and why that thing is good, which seems really simple, but in many debates I am left wondering what I'm supposed to be affirming. Second, I am often persuaded by presumption if the neg invests a decent amount of time going for it properly. To counter this, make sure you do the minimum of answering the BWDYDT?! question above, and perhaps give me a different way of thinking about presumption as it applies to critical affirmatives. Third, you need to have a solid relationship to/critique of the resolution. If you read 8 minutes of structural claims about the world and say virtually nothing about K-12 education policy, we're not going to be on the same page. Fourth, you need to solve your own offense. If a large portion of your aff is critiquing education policies/schools/institutional practices, I need to know how your method either a) resolves those or b) why I shouldn't care about you resolving those or c) how the aff's method results in 'something else' that could address those impacts, i.e. forms of activism or research methods, etc.

**Disads:** Love em. I will reiterate an important component: do not hand me a stack of cards at the end of a debate that do not have complete sentences. I would rather read 5, solid, well-highlighted UQ cards than 10 poopy cards that say "it'll pass but it's clooooose!" without ever highlighting anything beyond that sentence. I find myself leaning aff on questions of politics UQ nowadays because the neg evidence is usually hot garbage. To counter that, HIGHLIGHT your evidence, make sure it actually makes a definitive uniqueness claim.

**Counterplans:** Love em too. Relating to theory: I know a cheating counterplan when I see one, but I honestly don't care one way or another, so it is up to the debaters to convince me whether or not these are legitimate. However, **counterplans that don't have **any form** of solvency advocate are starting to get a little old**. I don't have an objection to "judge kicking" a counterplan in the 2NR as long as the 2NR tells me to do so. If it's conditional and the aff has no theoretical objection that is flagged in the 1AR, then I think it's perfectly fine for the 2NR to set this up. Education topic update: the States CP is necessary for the neg, but not all states counterplans are created equal. Some are more theoretically legitimate than others. I think the question of states vs. usfg is germane to the resolution, but I don't think that translates into the neg getting away with murder. Just keep that in mind when writing the 8th plank that is probably cheating.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**Kritiks:** For both sides, please focus on argument development and application in these debates rather than reading 15 poopy backfile cards that probably won't get you anything.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">-Stop with the mega overviews. I am one who will particularly like the style of 6 minute overviews, and then answering the line by line with "ya that was the overview"-- just say those things on the line by line!

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">-Framework is extremely important- the most common mistake I see the aff make is failing to develop substantive framework arguments about legal/institutional/pragmatic engagement. I often see the 1AR get bogged down going for random blurbs about fairness, which ultimately ends up being a wash. You get to weigh your aff. Now explain to me why I should prioritize your form of political engagement to outweigh the neg's ethics/epistemology/ontology 1st argument(s).

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">-Impact framing is also important- for the aff, even if the neg does not read case defense, do not make the mistake in assuming that you auto-win. You have to win a subsequent impact framing argument that tells me why those impacts matter. For the neg, the inverse applies. If you do not read case defense, you have to win your impact framing arguments.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">-Roles of the ballot are arbitrary. Stop it. My role is to tell tab who won. Just win your **impact framing argument** and stop telling me the ballot has a role. PLEASE. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">-Really hate it when the first question of 1AC CX is, "why vote aff?" <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">-If your strategy involves going for some version of "all debate is bad, let's kill it all, this activity is meaningless and only produces bad people" please consider who your audience is. Of course you can make arguments about flaws in specific debate practices, but you should also recognize that the extreme "debate is irredeemable" position is a tough sell to someone who has dedicated her life to the activity and tries to make it more accessible. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">-Floating PIKs: if the neg makes a PIK that clearly ~floats~ and it's flagged as such, it's up to the aff to call it out- I won't do the theory work for you. If you can't identify it/flush it out in CX, you deserve to lose to a floating PIK.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">-Examples are incredibly helpful in these debates, especially when making structural claims about the world.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**Evidence**: Evidence quality correlates with a higher chance of winning. Good evidence does not, however, substitute for good debating. **You should be doing evidence comparison**. Logic will always beat a terrible card without a warrant. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**Speaker Points:** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">-I think my point scale is pretty standard. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">-You get low points if you are unclear/rude/act like you don't care/don't flow/make poor strategic decisions/have bad cross-ex moments. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">-You get higher points if you demonstrate good cross-ex moments, clarity, making bold strategic moves, proper time allocation, judge instruction, ethos, and siiiiick case debate. Seriously, I will marginally bump your points if you invest in quality, in-depth case debate.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**Other:**

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">-If you clip, you will lose the round and receive 0 speaks. Seriously, don't cheat. I will vote against you for clipping EVEN IF the other team does not call you on it. I know what clipping is and I feel 100% comfortable calling it. Mark your ev and have a marked copy available.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">-If I say "clear" more than two times I will stop flowing.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">-Biggest pet peeve: debaters being unnecessarily difficult in cross-ex. This includes asking absurdly vague/irrelevant questions and debaters refusing to answer questions. This also includes cutting people off, and giving excessively drawn out answers to questions that can be answered efficiently. Please recognize that cross-ex is a mutual part of the debate.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">-If you want me to evaluate the debate outside of a traditional line-by-line fashion, that's fine, but you need to tell me what that looks like so we're on the same page.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">-Be respectful to each other, which includes your partner. Pettiness/sarcasm is appreciated, but recognize that there is a line and you shouldn't cross it. You should never, ever make any jokes about someone else's appearance.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">-If there are any access requirements, whether it be for disability or anything else, just let me know. I promise I'm not that scary.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">-If you try to turing test anyone I will transform into Dallas Perkins.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Any other questions can be asked before the round or email me jasminestidham@gmail.com with any questions. I'm also always willing to have a discussion via email after a tournament if you have questions about a particular debate.