Sherwood,+Sarah

UPDATED 10/22/17 Fall '17 Update (New PF section included)

I have been judging high school debate for the past 9 years now, and I did Parli in High School, and Parli and LD in College. I have judged all forms of High School Debate. Feel free to ask me more in depth questions in round if you don't understand a part of my philosophy.

Don't be a jerk. Make good arguments.
 * Over All Debate Philosophy**

I RESERVE THE RIGHT TO GUT-CHECK DROP ANY AND ALL TEAMS/DEBATERS I PERCEIVE AS BEING RACIST/SEXIST/HOMOPHOBIC/TRANSPHOBIC. I'm not in the mood for any problematic comments in debate rounds. Your speaks and record will suffer greatly in my hands.That being said I do not find running conservative arguments to automatically trigger this. If you have a problem with this I don't care. Your views are not wanted in the rounds I'm in the back of the room for.

__**Policy Debate Edu Topic Update 10/22/17**__

Please note that I do not judge Policy Debate very often. I am not as familiar with your norms but being an educator and knowing and working with educators I am more familiar with topic lit than I have been in the past. I am familiar with both Policy style arguments having done LD in College and Ks. I tend to vote more for truth over tech. I have recently found myself being interventionist against cards with problematic authors or cards cut to exclude marginalized groups from the debate space. That being said, nothing makes me happier than being able to vote on T. I love hearing a good K. But please be sure that you explain it or that your cards do. If I still have no idea what you are talking about then that is a you problem. Spread fast if you want but at a certain point I will miss something if you are going top speed because I flow on paper, I do know how to flow I'm just not as fast as those on a laptop. Feel free to ask me any questions before round.

[Do not read my LD phil as it is directed at TOC LDers only and probably won't give you any clarity in how I will vote in your rounds.]

__**LD Debate (Updated 4/21/17)**__

[Do not take my Policy phil into account as it does not apply to you and I will not evaluate you how I evaluate them.]

STRIKE ME if you won't disclose your cases to the other debater AND the judge/s. I will not vote for a debater that won't give their case. It is shady and uneducational. If you are that afraid of people having your case it's bad, and all you have as a replacement for skill is this game of playing gotcha. I'm not impressed. I shouldn't have to have this on here but I don't trust ya'll and I don't want to be put in a spot where I take this out and someone pulls something.

Things to consider:
 * I see my self as a truth over tech K judge. High theory, love for dead white male philosophers, and time wasting theory spikes are really not my thing and not what I am interested in having to evaluate. I will. But I'm probably not the judge for you if you think your two line theory spikes are something I should take seriously.
 * Your K's should link and I need an alt that is more than 'Drop Aff Vote Neg'. At least care about what your K is talking about instead of making it just a means to my ballot.
 * I will vote on RVI's if they apply. A well warranted theory argument or T that is part of the main Neg strat that is not dropped does not deserve an RVI nor will I vote on that RVI.
 * In rare cases I will drop you for rudeness. Be sassy. Be loud. Be aggressive. Don't be a jerk.
 * Education is a voter to me, but that's because as an educator I feel like Debaters should be able to get something out of this activity.
 * I flow on paper. I hate the current methods of flowing on a laptop. So I don't flow nearly as fast as some of my fellow judges.
 * I will look at your docs during your speech, and I do so for two reasons. One: I want to spell the author's names right. My quality of life when judging has drastically increased since speech docs. Don't take this away from me. Two: I'm checking against you clipping cards.
 * If you are not going to try to adapt to what I have written here then at least let me know and ask me some questions to try to make the best of it.
 * I probably need real articulated abuse in round to vote for your theory or RVI or whatever. Your arbitrary "Neg can only run this many of this argument" probably doesn't have the abuse story I am looking for.
 * On the note of super complex philosophical arguments, I try really hard to understand what you are talking about and there has only been one round this past season that I felt totally lost in the lit. But if I don't get it I probably will not vote on it.
 * K probably comes before T.

__**Framework**__ You do not win rounds if you win framework. You do NOT win rounds if you win framework. YOU DO NOT WIN ROUNDS IF YOU WIN FRAMEWORK. You win that I judge the round via your framework. You can still lose under your framework, you shouldn't but that's a YOU problem and not a ME problem. When it comes to framework I'm a bit odd and a bit old school. I function under the idea that Aff has the right to define the round. And if Neg wants to me to evaluate the round via their framework then they need to prove some sort of abuse. I don't buy "mine is better" or "mine presumes theirs" or whatever buzz phrase ya'll are using these days. I do buy "mine is more important" due to kritikal positions that come first. When it comes to competing kritikal frameworks I often feel like I am being asked to prioritize one marginalized group over another. I don't like being put in this position. I always feel gross. I feel like it is often taken personally that I voted for one over the other. I just ask that you understand that I have to make a choice in a limited time and often it doesn't come down to the framework. I try to not judge rounds based on framework.

__**Theory**__ I apparently need to clarify my position on theory. I'm good with theory but that doesn't mean I buy yours. And that doesn't mean I live for it. LD theory is always changing and adapting and I don't buy that a lot of it is good or correct or needed. If you want to win your theory spend time on it and put a voter on it. So basically tell me why it's important. Reading 80 theory spikes in the AC wastes all of our time. If the Neg is good enough your one line spike won't be enough to stop whatever it is they want to do. But just doing work on theory isn't enough to win it. I do not like frivolous theory. I don't want to promise I will or will not vote for it it really depends on how the rounds go but if you are running what I see as frivolous theory then I probably won't vote for you.

I define frivolous theory to be:
 * Theory spikes read in the AC at the bottom that will never be used for anything. Just read another card for your contentions.
 * Theory that tries to get debaters to debate under a super restrictive requirement.
 * Theory that could easily go away with a "we meet". Or in other words a waste of time.

My brightline for "we meet" on theory will vary depending on what it is. But most often if I can reasonably agree there is some type of "we meet" and no articulated actual abuse then I will probably buy there is no reason to vote on the theory.

Speaks will be disclosed if they are asked for. Range is 28.5-29.6 for me mostly. If you are really good they will be higher, if you are not so good they will be lower but this is my normal range as of the last few tournaments.

__**Public Forum**__

I'm impressed that you found this, and also bewildered I was put in the position I have to judge PF. So lets make the best of it.
 * You are required to read a date and an author or source name for your evidence.
 * You are required to hand over evidence if asked for it.
 * I will drop you and tank your speaks if you don't. Protest me I'll walk into a tab with a smile on my face and be happy to fight with your coach over it.
 * I know how to flow and will flow.
 * This measn I require a road map. This does not need to be timed.
 * I need you to sign post and tell me which contention you are on. Use author/source names.
 * You do not need to stand. You do not need to wear your jacket if you do not want to. You do not need to wear heels if you have comfy alternatives you would rather wear. None of these things have any impact on my ballot in any way.
 * I will disclose. I will give feedback. If you ask I will disclose speaks.
 * I will vote on Ks.
 * I will vote on theory.
 * If you run it and I don't vote for you I will give you a full explanation as to why I did not and let you ask me as many questions as you want as to why I didn't and try to give you ideas on how to run it better in the future.
 * Be strategic and make good life choices.