Jansen,+Maddison


 * I am on the speech team at the University of Northern Iowa. I did Iowa High School speech, which isn't really speech, and I have a little mock trial experience, but no official debate experience. I'm a full-time honors college student, so I know things, and I can think critically, so I'm not just some hired judge that's like "what is a logical fallacy" kind of thing. __The main thing to know about me is that I lack the ability to recognize debate norms. Using terms like "2AR" or whatever are almost completely lost on me. If you can make an impactful argument that I can understand, you will likely win the debate.__ **


 * Having said that, most of the comments written below are drawn from the paradigm of Abbie Shew, an experienced debater, whose expertise I trust. **

I see debate as an open-ended activity. I don’t have any preconceived notions of what should happen in a round and I will vote for pretty much anything as long as you tell me why it matters. I will vote on any argument that I think you are winning. However, I generally don't want to do work for you and I probably won’t make any cross applications or extrapolate arguments beyond how you explained them in the round.

 Have fun! If you have an insane/clever argument you want to try out, by all means read it in front of me, I’ll probably like it. That said, don’t be a jerk. It’s fine to out-smart your opponent, but don’t make them feel bad about it.

Speaker points are pretty arbitrary, and I will probably give you high speaks as long as you are organized/intelligent/not rude.

I think most of the things in here are fairly generic, so feel free to email me at jmadds@uni.edu if you have any specific questions I can answer.

 **Policy Specific Things**

I don't have a ton of preference to one type of argument or another. While my experience in policy has been mainly K debate, I like/understand more traditional policy type arguments as well.

General tip: I love it when I can basically summarize the 2NR/2AR on my ballot. The best debaters are the ones who can bring the whole debate together in the last rebuttals to tell a clear, concise story.

Here are some terms Abbie wrote about that I do not recognize: DA/CP/PICs; T/FW; K. That being said, if you use one of these styles and it makes sense to the layperson, cool. But if you say something like "My K is better than your FW because x," then that is totally lost on me.

Performance debate is fine as long as you can tell me why it matters. I'm generally ok with just about anything (assuming you aren't violating any laws/school policies or anything too extreme) as long as you can explain some kind of impact.

 **LD Specific Things**

Basically, I don’t care what you do as long as both you and I know what you’re talking about.

More specifically:

I mostly judge/debate policy so speed is fine. However, if you have a lot of small blippy arguments/spikes please slow down so I can flow them correctly.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 1.5;">Theory- meh. It’s a good way to check abuse, but I think it’s becoming overused and a cheap shot. That said, I will absolutely vote for theory if you are winning.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 1.5;">Policy-type arguments (Plan, CP, DA, etc)- I have no idea what these are. If you can explain them to me in a way that I can understand without having to know debate community norms, by all means, go for it.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 1.5;">Performance - same thing I said above, anything is fine as long as you can explain an impact.