Noble,+Ellen

I debated for four years at Walt Whitman High School on both the local and national circuit. I now attend Macalester College and am an assistant coach at Apple Valley High School. In the past two summers I've worked at the Victory Briefs Institute, the National Debate Forum, and UNT Mean Green Workshops.


 * General Preferences:** I’ll adjudicate the round based on whatever decision calculus is set up by the debaters and then whoever best meets the standard/burden established. I’m open to hearing all types of arguments as long as they aren't blatantly offensive. Creativity is great, but not at the expense of intelligence. Strong and nuanced argument comparison will get you higher speaks. I won’t vote for an argument that doesn’t have a warrant or isn’t fully extended throughout the round. Finally, don’t be mean - be funny or confident or clever, but don’t be mean.


 * Speed:** As for speed, I should be okay as long as you’re clear. I'll only yell clear once. I’m not familiar with most critical literature so spewing out a complicated critical case as fast as you can may not be a great strategy in front of me.


 * Paradigm Debates:** If debaters engage the paradigm debate, I will adopt the better warranted paradigm. Absent a paradigm debate, the first person to establish a paradigm gets presumption in terms of which paradigm I’ll adopt. If neither debater establishes a paradigm nor engages in a paradigm debate, then I will default to a comparison of impacts and view the resolution as a policy statement. This is rarely an issue.


 * Theory:** Theory is fine, but I don't find trivial or underdeveloped shells strategic. I prefer theory in traditional shell form, but at a minimum all the components of a shell must be in your argument. Slow down when reading the interpretation. I like to see theory met with a counter interpretation because it makes the debate more offense oriented and my evaluation less subjective. I think it's the most strategic option for a debater responding to theory, though I'm open to alternate ways to evaluate theory if they are justified. I don't treat counter interps as RVIs. I still need a violation if I'm going to vote on theory so if you want me to vote on a competing interpretation that "X is permissible" you need to explain why the other debater running theory to prevent you from doing X constitutes a violation or some argument about why a debater should be voted down for running theory against a fair position. Of course, the other option is to just win offense on the case debate. Finally, I appreciate crystallization in theory debates.


 * Defaulting:** I think there’s almost always a risk of offense at the end of the round, so there’s no situation in which I’ll have to default neg/aff. If both debaters are having trouble making any arguments with warrants to garner a risk of offense, then I'll default to whoever I think was the ‘better debater’ / smarter in that round.