White,+Kristen

My goal is for you to demonstrate your ability in the way you're most comfortable. I'll do my best to adapt to you and judge as fairly as I can. All the information below is to help you understand my biases and capabilities.

I come from a debate world where the aff has a stable and relatively topical advocacy and the neg argues for the status quo and/or a limited number of CP/K alternatives to the case. I am open to other styles of debate but you’ll have to walk me through the arguments and help me understand what I’m really voting for and why. I understand the various schools of critical thought but don't have a lot of in-depth knowledge of specific authors. The closest to my default paradigm is probably offense/defense. Tell me what "good stuff" happens if I vote for you and why that stuff is good. Be detailed and specific.

Assume I have a lower threshold to vote on topicality/theory arguments than many other judges with similar preferences. I default to competing interpretations for most theory debates but can be persuaded by reasonability or in-round fairness arguments. That being said, I HATE blippy and nonsensical arguments thrown in just in case they’re dropped. Do not count on winning because your opponent dropped the sixth of your eight quick perms.

One thing I'm uncomfortable with lately is the level of embedded clash where there's no direct analysis of how arguments interact until late in the rebuttals. If you're using a certain position to turn or answer another position, I do expect at least some explanation of how they function together early in the debate so that there is time in the rebuttals to dig into that clash and flesh it out.

It's been awhile since I've judged on the national circuit so watch your speed and clarity. I’ll say “slow” or “clear” a couple of times if I’m having trouble following. If you continue to ignore me, I’ll flow what I can but I won’t go back and read all the cards to try to catch what I missed. If you're nice and clear, you can go pretty quick. I have a very hard time understanding people who speak very loudly; it obscures your consonants.

I flow content and pay attention so I prefer not to call for evidence unless there’s a definite dispute about what a card actually says. Don't extend a card without warrants and expect me to read it after the round. If it’s that important, tell me what in the card is critical to supporting your argument.

Revised 6/14/16