Blagg,+Kirsten

I debated for 3 years at Millard West High School in Omaha Nebraska. I am just out of high school and judge locally in Wisconsin. I am fine with any argument you want to run. Though actually being Tabula Rasa is impossible for any judge, I do my best not to intervene and only evaluate arguments said in round. The only conscious interventions I will make are on morally repressible arguments like racism or sexism good. I like in-depth debate rounds, you can read short shells and two sentences cards, I will vote on them, but I prefer arguments with actual substance and warrants. Clash and explain how your argument interacts with the other arguments in a round. View and evaluate the debate as a whole not just each flow as a separate debate. Explain how your impacts interact in the world of you opponent. If you do not explain how to evaluate the round I tend just to view your impacts on their own and whatever is biggest, fastest, and sure to happen will win. I do not like voting on body counts and am easily persuaded why small likely impacts or sestemic impacts are more important and will often (if you argue why) will pick those over nuclear war.

It is your debate, run what you want to run I will listen, but here is how I tend to evaluate arguments.


 * Topicality: I will vote on topicality, but it needs to actually be argued. I will not vote on T if the neg only wins the interpretation and violation. I do not care if the aff is untopical unless you win your standards and voters. Get away from only using jargon and actually explain what it means to over or under limit and why that is important. In round Abuse makes it easy for me to vote on topicality. I do not on face believe that topicality must come first and that an aff must be topical, if the aff gives good reasons why other things are more important or why t does not matter.
 * Theory: Do not speed read theory. I will only get a little of what you say and I will not take your theory arguments seriously. I will vote on theory, but you need to spend time on it. I view theory in much the same way as topicality, don’t rely on jargon.
 * DA: Run what you want. I will not vote you down for generic links, but I like specific links and even more I like specific case DA as opposed to a generic politics with political capital link. I do not like unrealistic apocalypse impacts, but I will vote for them. I think that economic collapse will not lead to nuclear war and in many cases a few good analytics can get ride of a nuclear war impact. Saying that given many debates I end up voting to prevent nuclear war.
 * CP: Counterplans are great, case specific ones even better. I think some of the best debates are about specific counterplans. Linking to the net benefit is a reason for me not to vote on the perm if the neg is winning the NB. Again generic solvency is fine but the affs solvency is specific so if the CP solvency should be.
 * K’s: Read them and hit them almost every round. I like specific link analysis (linking to discourse or plan action) give me specifics. Explain how the alternative functions. Don’t rely on jargon and actually explain your authors in the context of the aff.
 * Critical/Performance Aff’s: Ran them or hit them every tournament. Explain what you are doing and why, specifically why in a debate round as opposed to in school or wherever else. I like critical affs when they creatively meet or at least talk about the resolution. While I vote on them and you can argue them, I would rather hear a critical or performance that has to do with the topic (the topic how ever you wish to define it) than a case which works for any year.
 * Framework: Be specific. Same as T needs work on why what they are doing is bad and why you need a framework. Against many Performace and K affs I would read 8 mins of T/FW so if you want to win on it I need depth and specific explanation. Your generic no K’s will probably not get you a ballot (your time would be better used actually answering the K).
 * Speed: I can handle speed but slow down on tags and cites and say and or something between cards.
 * Cross-X: Tag team is fine, just don’t be a dick or take over. CX is not used enough, iti is not just free prep time.
 * Other Stuff: I do not like it when you run contradicting arguments, I prefer a good cohesive strat. I rarely call for evidence but will if it is disputed.