Halterman,+Nicky

Background: This is my first year judging LD. I competed in LD all four years of high school, mostly on a moderately traditional local circuit and in the NSDA style. I was the 2014 NSDA runner up in LD, and the 2015 NSDA National Champion in LD. I also competed on the 2015 USA national team in Worlds Schools and was a lab leader at UNT’s Mean Green Workshops.

Short Version: Argument engagement over argument avoidance. Good debates have clash Warrant your arguments and don’t resort to blippiness Go a moderate speed: I didn’t spread or compete against people who spread, my threshold will be lower than some judges Be polite and avoid all arguments that are racist, homophobic, etc. Relax, enjoy, have a good debate.

Specifics:

Round Evaluation: I have a major preference for topical debate. If by the end of the round I am being asked to decide primarily on non-topic-related arguments, I will often have a difficult time evaluating the round and may not award high speaks. Other than that, I vote for the debater that is better able to generate offense and offer compelling weighing of that offense. Offense without comparative augmentation or weighing is much less likely to win you the round.

Speed: For the vast majority of LDers, I find clarity to be a much bigger issue than speed. That being said, even for those of you who are clear I do not have much experience with fast debates (I competed almost exclusively in the NSDA style,) so you should probably go slower with me than for many judges.

Blippy arguments: I think that blippy argumentation is bad for LD and I generally won’t consider arguments that I feel are unwarranted. One sentence is not usually enough to make an argument. Additionally, just because your opponent drops an argument does not make it good, and debaters that fill the flow, call drops, and don’t warrant or weigh their arguments are very unlikely to win my ballot. I believe that some degree of intervention is required to police this, as asking a debater to make a full no-warrant argument against every blippy argument is not viable. If you find yourself facing lots of blippy arguments in front of me, answer whichever arguments are important and have clear weighing for the round and you are likely to be fine.

Extensions: Extending arguments is very important. Saying the word “extend” is not the same thing as extending an argument. To keep an argument relevant in the round, you need to defend it, warrant it, and weigh it, or else it won’t get you any offense.

Framework: Framework is very important. I don’t care if it is in V/CR form. Your weighing mechanism must be clearly stated. I look both for who links better into the frameworks, but also independent reason to prefer either framework. Comparative, philosophical argumentation about frameworks is an important part of framework debate, and cannot be replaced by just saying your framework “outweighs.”

Kritics: I enjoy good critical stances both on affirmative and negative. Please do not assume that I have read the literature, and go slowly and explain any dense philosophical material. Having a well-developed alternative (or advocacy on aff) is important. “Reject the aff” is not an alternative. Finally, I have a high threshold for dropping debaters because of methodology indicts. Generally speaking, you need to challenge the conclusions of your opponents case, not just the methodology they use to reach those conclusions. So if the aff reads Rawls to defend food security, and you read ableism against Rawls but never say why food security is bad, you are unlikely to win the round.

Disad/Counterplan: I like them. Reasonable disads are better, don’t dive for nuclear war impacts to try to outweigh. I consider the strength of the links to be much more important than the scope of the impact, so long as the impact is enough to be a real factor in the round. Counterplans need to have a clear plan text, solvency, etc. They also need to have net benefits (i.e. disad, kritical attack on the aff, etc.) and to be competitive. Generally speaking, you should avoid PICs in front of me as I feel that they rarely clash sufficiently with the aff advocacy.

Evidence: I think that strong evidence debate is interesting and important. Debaters who can intelligently compare author credibility, methodology, etc. will earn higher points and a better chance at the ballot. I will call for cards after the round if there is substantial evidence clash or if I am concerned about powertagging (please don’t powertag). On that note, clipping cards, faking citations, or lying about evidence will earn you an immediate loss and (tournament allowing) a trip to tab. Theory: I think that theory is argued far more than it should be in LD. If you want to run theory in front of me, you must be able to show CLEAR abuse from your opponent. I do not insist on any kind of set shell format for theory arguments, so long as you clearly explain the abuse and why I should care as a judge. Jargon heavy theory debates will often loose me. I don’t mind competing interpretation styles of theory debate, but inevitably I will decide to a large extent on reasonability. I will basically only ever drop the argument, however in many circumstances that will be enough to win you the round if you opponent is going all-in on a clearly abusive strategy. Proactive theory as an offensive strategy is almost always going to result in a loss with low speaks. Spec, A-Spec, T, etc. are not viable strategies to win in front of me. They should ONLY be used to check legitimate abuse.

Performance cases: I am fairly inexperienced with performative cases. If you want to incorporate performative elements, you must still have a clear advocacy that your opponent can engage with. I prefer cases that incorporate a performative element as a smaller piece in a more traditional case as opposed to an entirely or predominantly performative case. I also would please ask for all debaters to understand and be sensitive to the effects of introducing personal elements to the debate. All debaters MUST treat one another’s experiences with respect. Additionally, I find cases that attempt to limit the debate to only narrative or performative arguments mildly troubling, and am receptive to arguments about the potentially harmful effects of forcing people to share personal connections they might otherwise chose not to.

Things you shouldn’t do: Skep, Tricks, anything without an advocacy, new arguments in 2AR theory, AFC.

If you are offensive (racist, homophobic, etc.) you will get a loss 20. If you are worried about an argument in this regard, don’t run it.

If you are rude to your opponent, audience, judges, etc., I am very willing to drop your speaks and (if its bad enough) the ballot. I consider one of my most important roles as a judge to maintain debate as a safe, positive learning environment.