Niermann,+Megan

Niermann, Megan 4 Years High School LD, Clayton High School, MO (100% lay judges, traditional argumentation) 1 Year College Policy, UMKC (kritikal argumentation) They/them/their pronouns when referring to me, please!

I want to hear good rounds. Do what you are best at and have the most evidence and coaching for. That said, I am a K debater and am predisposed to more kritikal arguments. Because I interpret debate as less of a game than an advocacy space, I will always reserve the right to not vote for you if you are being oppressive in some way, be it in your argumentation or your language. Yes, this means that language is a potential voter for me, even if no one reads a language K. Because this is a gateway issue for me I will tell you within the round if this applies to you. Because I am so new with policy debate, my paradigm is constantly changing and so I am ultimately very flexible to all styles of argument.


 * Topicality/Framework:** I used to say that I would default to reasonability, yada yada, but that felt misleading because I vote on T a lot, especially against traditional policy affs on techy interps. I do not think that T is Evil/Genocide/The Worst Ever. In fact, I often think that when a k aff is talking about debate and our community, T seems like the best possible way to engage because then the round comes down to a question of what debate should be. If you are planning on going for T, it needs to be a substantial piece (think 5+ minutes) of the neg block. Best arg for neg is definitely T version of the aff, best args for aff are a T/framework perm and reasonability.


 * Theory:** I actually like theory debates a lot. They should, again, be extended and well impacted. If you read 30 second theory blips you just wasted 30 seconds of speech time. I am unique in that I think that condo is probably bad. If you drop arguments I think that it is probably your responsibility to justify why you did that, but I can be persuaded otherwise. If you're reading theory arguments make sure that you actually meet what your ideal version of debate should be...otherwise I may choose to vote for the theory arg and against you. ;)


 * Traditional Affs:** Just because I do K debate doesn't mean I don't like policy affirmatives. I get lost in technical jargon and lots of cards pretty easily. I am no expert on surveillance, although I do know some things about the topic through coaching a traditional UDL team. I don't think that just because you're traditional, your version of debate is better. Tell me why your topical aff is good for debate. Also make sure your impacts are extended and that you've told me why the case outweighs.


 * K/Performance Affs:** Going into the round, I assume that having a relationship to the resolution is valuable. I can be persuaded otherwise, but ya'll need to do that work...don't assume that just because the aff fights x form of oppression, that justifies closing people out who need some link to the resolution in order to engage. Because I run these kinds of affs I am more familiar with the literature base but don't assume I know what you're talking about. If there is a T version of your aff you need a very good defense of why you aren't T; "we don't want to use the state" without further articulation is probably not enough.


 * DAs:** If you read PTX I'll vote on it but your speaks will probably not look great because I'll be so upset at you for reading me a politics scenario. Other DAs are A+.


 * CPs:** Rad. Be careful about making sure that you have a net benefit. PICs are probably fair but I am often persuaded by permutation arguments. I have won 70+% of my rounds on a word PIC. Consult/delay are probably not fair.


 * Ks:** These are my fave. I am iffy about high theory; I'll listen and be engaged but will need you to be very good about explaining to me what's going on. Specific links are always better. No reason to make a permutation that isn't "perm: do both," probably. Affs need better answers than "it's a method debate."


 * Speed:** This is something I can do. Kind of. I do have an auditory processing disorder and so would appreciate extreme clarity in every instance. I will remind you about clarity twice. If you are still too unclear (which often means too fast) I'll just stop trying to flow you and vote on what I can understand. It doesn't make any sense to me to read analytics at the same speed that you're reading cards. Please, too, slow down on your plan text/advocacy statement so I can write it down. If your speed is making the round less accessible for the other team and you don't fix it, that's a problem.


 * Speaker Points (from the lovely Jide Ajisafe):**

"0-25 You were probably violent and pissed me off. I also probably told you about yourself during the debate 27.5 Decent/average. Forgivable slip ups 28 Great moments. Could be cleaner 28.5 “ “ you will probably break 29 “ “ you impressed the hell out of me 29.5 “ “ I am now a fan" I don't know if I have ever given a 29.5. If I do it is probably because you have made me question my views on the debate space or the policy making world in such a meaningful way as to encourage me to change my own argumentation. Also know that as a stutterer, I am unconvinced that normative patterns of speech should be as valued as they are within the debate space. Speaks are not so much about fluency as clear argumentation, good organization, line by line clash, and considerate language choices.

- Don't be mean for no reason. Sometimes I think that people should feel uncomfortable in a debate round. If you said something racist, for example, I will not prioritize your comfort. That said I also want debate to be accessible for as many people as possible and if your behavior is making the space less accessible for no coherent reason, that is an issue. - I am a highly expressive judge. My face does silly things. There is nothing to be done. You are best served by looking at it and tailoring your arguments as such. I am sensitive to disabilities that disallow for an understanding of these kinds of cues. If you are neurodivergent/have another identity that precludes you from placing value in my facial expressions, let me know and I can give you other visual or verbal cues. - Please please please include me on the email chain/flash dealio. I don't want to be the judge that asks for a million cards after the round, but I probably will be if I'm not privy to the speech doc from the beginning. - I will not take prep time for flashing unless you are violently typing while you're flashing. Stealing prep will probably mean bad bad bad speaks. - Open CX is fine as long as everyone is cool with it and is probably my preference as a judge. That said, your speaks will be significantly worse if you don't let your partner ask/answer. If you have an identity that makes it more difficult to participate in CX, let me know before the round. - On that note, I am probably different from many judges in that I look at teams at just that: two people working together, even within each speech. I think verbal prompting is a very good tool. I will flow what either of you say during the speech.
 * Other junk:**