Johnson,+Taylor

 **Quick overview in case you're reading before a round:**

 - 4 years high school debate, Marshfield Missouri (Africa through Military engagement)

- University of Central Florida, 3 years ( MENA through War Powers)

This is my 3rd year judging high school debate and my 1st year judging college debate. I've judged a lot of high school rounds this year, and so far only a few novice college rounds early in the season.

I like well-explained, smart arguments. I would rather hear you explain something well with good examples than read a ton of cards that all say the same thing. I'll stick as close to the flow as I can and judge the debate based on how the debaters tell me to judge.

**More detailed if you are reading this for prefs:**
 * Baics:**

I debated for 7 years, and I've been judging for 2. I judge a fair amount, but you should assume I'm not familiar with your aff - I may not know what your acronym stands for or what the legal code says about exploration in international waters etc. Explaining what those things are will increase my chances of following your argument, and will probably improve your speaker points.

As a debater, I’ve gone for a variety of arguments and debated in a variety of styles. In high school I leaned primarily toward disads and case, although I spent a fair amount of time debating in a “performance” style – critiquing the way the debate community structures itself in regards to particular individuals. In college, I tend to be pretty middle of the road – I’m most likely to go for a social justice or systemic impact, although I do read some high theory occasionally. That being said, do what you do. I may not find the politics and case strategy as entertaining as I used to, but I certainly understand it and can evaluate it competently. Similarly, I may not be very well-read on your high theory lit, but if you explain it to me I am more than willing to work to follow your argument.

I don’t like discriminatory language. If you consistently use gendered, racist, ableist, or otherwise exclusionary language I won’t like you. That is likely to be reflected in your speaker points, and if the other team reads a language K you may find yourself in trouble.

I generally prefer to minimize the amount of evidence I call for after the round. If you haven't extended the warrant in your card, but have just given me an author name and a claim, I will likely not call for the card to find the warrant for you after the round, especially if the other team is extending warranted answers to that card.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; vertical-align: baseline;">I like it when people tell me how they want me to read evidence. If you tell me to call for a card/star it/circle it, or to maintain a particular mindset when evaluating something, I'll do my best to think in that mindset when making my decision. Most of hte time, I would rather hear you do a good job extending a card from the 1ac/1nc and explaining why the warrants of that card overcome the other team's evidence than hear a new card. That's not to say you shouldn't read new evidence later in the debate, but you should know the evidence from your earlier speeches well enough not to just read a new card that says the same thing as the card you already read.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; vertical-align: baseline;">**Specifics:**

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; vertical-align: baseline;">//Paperless debate//: I am a fan of paperless. I think it makes debate more accessible by making travel more affordable and reducing space issues when taking teams to tournaments. However, there are several issues that come with the transition that can easily trigger my anger toward you.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; vertical-align: baseline;">- I won’t time saving a document and ejecting your flash drive as a part of prep unless I feel that prep stealing is becoming an issue. However, don’t take advantage of my generosity on this issue. You **will** lose speaker points if I notice that you’re consistently prepping after the timer has stopped. I'll also probably yell at you and start timing you flashing.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; vertical-align: baseline;">- Make sure the other team has a way to view your speeches. If the other team is papered and needs a viewing computer, provide one. That’s part of the responsibility you accept when you make the transition.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; vertical-align: baseline;">- Don’t read ahead in your opponent’s speech. I shouldn’t need to tell you this. If I see you doing this, I will dock your speaks.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; vertical-align: baseline;">- Have a backup plan for computer crashes. **It is not a question of if you will have a tech problem, but rather when.** Save your speeches in drop box or on your partner’s computer so that if your computer crashes you can read from theirs. Remember that every minute you spend trying to deal with a computer that shut down during your speech is a minute cut out of my decision time. I have little tolerance for making the round or the tournament run late because you had a technical problem.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; vertical-align: baseline;">- Don’t speak directly into your computer screen or ignore the flow just because you have a speech document that you’re reading from. If I can’t hear you, I can’t flow, and if you’re not telling me where to flow the arguments you’re making, I’m unlikely to follow the intricacies of the debate as well as I do when things are clearly labeled and signposting is prevalent.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; vertical-align: baseline;">//Speaker Points:// Things that will improve your speaker points in front of me: -Telling me how you want me to read the evidence (the phrase "be skeptical" is one of my favorite things to hear) -Being funny and/or entertaining. I like Doctor Who, Zelda, and a host of other nerdy things. Making references to these things will probably make me happy. -Being particularly clear. I would rather hear someone who is relatively slow but clear and efficient over someone lightning fast but unclear any day. -Being sassy, especially in cross-x. I enjoy sarcasm a lot. (this is not to be confused with rudeness. There's a difference between being sarcastic and being condescending. If you can't successfully navigate that difference, you're better off not trying) Things that will hurt your points with me: -Being a jerk. It's not necessary to be condescending or rude to your opponents. Doing so will piss me off. -Sexist/racist/ableist/etc language All that aside, I've been using Justin Green's scale from the CEDA forums for a while with good results, so I'll probably continue to use it as a guideline. Here it is: <span style="background-color: #ecedf3; font-family: verdana,sans-serif; font-size: small; vertical-align: baseline;">29.2 or above - you blew my mind/I want to thank you for your performance...You deserve top 3 speakers

<span style="background-color: #ecedf3; font-family: verdana,sans-serif; font-size: small; vertical-align: baseline;">29-29.2 - Performance in this round was top-5 worthy

<span style="background-color: #ecedf3; font-family: verdana,sans-serif; font-size: small; vertical-align: baseline;">28.8-28.9 - top-10 worthy

<span style="background-color: #ecedf3; font-family: verdana,sans-serif; font-size: small; vertical-align: baseline;">28.6-28.7 - Decent doubles/Octos speech

<span style="background-color: #ecedf3; font-family: verdana,sans-serif; font-size: small; vertical-align: baseline;">28.4-28.5 - Good break-round/doubles performance

<span style="background-color: #ecedf3; font-family: verdana,sans-serif; font-size: small; vertical-align: baseline;">28.3 - You should be on the top side of the bubble for breaking, but not by much

<span style="background-color: #ecedf3; font-family: verdana,sans-serif; font-size: small; vertical-align: baseline;">28.1-28 - This was a top 50 team at the tournament ranking, but you likely miss clearing

<span style="background-color: #ecedf3; font-family: verdana,sans-serif; font-size: small; vertical-align: baseline;">27.8-27.9 - Solid effort - continue the quality of speeches and one will likely finish at a 3-5 or 4-4

<span style="background-color: #ecedf3; font-family: verdana,sans-serif; font-size: small; vertical-align: baseline;">27.6-27.7 - Solid effort - continue the quality of speeches and one will likely finish at a 2-6 or 3-5

<span style="background-color: #ecedf3; font-family: verdana,sans-serif; font-size: small; vertical-align: baseline;">27.5 - Solid Effort - I like your attitude, you have a lot of elements to improve.

<span style="background-color: #ecedf3; font-family: verdana,sans-serif; font-size: small; vertical-align: baseline;">Below a 27.5 - Some major element of speaking was missing (only read blocks), was extremely unclear or behaved in a way that did not demonstrate respect for the people in the room.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; vertical-align: baseline;">//Framework//: If there’s an agreed-upon lens through which the teams think I should view the debate, that’s how I’ll evaluate the round. Otherwise, there are a few things I’m looking for in a framework debate: //As an Aff strategy -//

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; vertical-align: baseline;">- I view framework first and foremost as a debate about how I should weigh impacts. For me, that means you should devote time to explaining why I should weigh your neoliberal pedagogy bad impact before I look at the other team’s global warming causes extinction story, or vice-versa. If the other team is doing this and you are not, I’m going to evaluate the debate through their lens.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; vertical-align: baseline;">- I’m unlikely to grant you that the neg doesn’t get kritiks. If that’s the view of debate you’re advocating, you’re going to have to give me some pretty good reasons that they keep you from being able to debate. I’m much more persuaded by arguments that you should get to weigh the aff against the K, or that their specific role of the ballot is unsustainable. //As a Neg Strategy -// <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; vertical-align: baseline;">- While I don’t really believe the affirmative must provide a topical plan text to make debate fair, I prefer affirmatives that have a clear tie to the topic. This is not to say I can't be convinced that there are discussions that need to happen before we can talk about the resolution, but generally I think that talking about the topic in some way is probably good. That said, I’m much more willing to listen to “the aff must provide a specific example of what their case looks like in action,” or “the aff must be resolutional (they must in some way be about the resolution),” than “the aff must role play the USFG doing a topical policy action.” If the latter is what you do, do it. But do it well. -I think education is probably the most important impact in a framework debate. If you can explain to me why your version of debate is more educational or provides better/more topic-focused education, you're on the right track with me.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; vertical-align: baseline;">//Topicality//: **Slow down** here and give me a chance to flow. If I can’t get your five reasons to prefer down before you move on to the next off, you’ve put yourself in a difficult position. This is also true of theory arguments.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; vertical-align: baseline;">- I have a relatively high threshold for voting on T. However, this does not mean I’m unwilling to vote on it. Make clear arguments and explain why your view of the topic is better for debate.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; vertical-align: baseline;">- I lean toward reasonability, but affs need to explain what that means. I will not be persuaded by “we’re reasonably topical, moving on.”

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; vertical-align: baseline;">- T is not a reverse voter. I am unlikely to vote against a team just because they read T. You are much more likely to convince me that excluding your aff has a negative impact on the topic discussion, or that the education your aff provides is uniquely important.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; vertical-align: baseline;">//Theory//: My threshold for voting on theory is pretty high. I’m more likely to believe your theory argument is a reason to reject the argument than the team. This can, however, put the offending team in a position to be unable to win. There are far too many potential theory arguments for me to address all of them here. I’ll give you my opinions on a few of the most common ones. If you have specific questions, feel free to ask before the round.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; vertical-align: baseline;">- I’m most easily persuaded by multiple conditional worlds/perfcon bad. I find it pretty reasonable that the negative shouldn’t get to read counterplans that link to their reps K.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; vertical-align: baseline;">- I don’t find condo very compelling. I tend to believe the negative probably gets at least one conditional advocacy.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; vertical-align: baseline;">- I’m not a huge fan of agent counterplans, especially those that use multiple actors. If you’re the negative in this situation, you’re going to have to put in a fair amount of work to convince me I shouldn’t reject this argument.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; vertical-align: baseline;">//Counterplans//:

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; vertical-align: baseline;">- I don’t believe in kicking the CP (or the K) for the neg. if you go for it in the 2NR, you better have a pretty great reason I should be able to evaluate status quo v. plan after the 2AR if you want to keep that an option. That being said, the aff still has to make an argument as to why I shouldn’t kick the CP for the neg if the neg is giving me a reason why I should.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; vertical-align: baseline;">- I tend to believe the perm is just a test of competition, but if you have a reason that the aff should get to/have to defend the perm as a separate policy option, I’m open to that argument.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; vertical-align: baseline;">- I like well-researched, specific CPs and PICS. I will be much happier listening to a debate about a counterplan written specifically to answer the aff than I will be listening to a generic states or consult CP.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; vertical-align: baseline;">- You should have a good explanation of how the counterplan is executed. If you read “consult the public,” but can’t tell me how the consultation process happens in your world, the aff is going to have a pretty easy time winning a solvency deficit.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; vertical-align: baseline;">//Disadvantages//:

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; vertical-align: baseline;">- I prefer topic-specific disads with case-specific links to generic politics or spending disads.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; vertical-align: baseline;">- Impact comparison is key! I’ve found most high school debaters are not good at this. If you can give me actual deep analysis rather than the generic “we outweigh on magnitude, risk and timeframe,” (a claim usually made with no deeper explanation) I will be happy.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; vertical-align: baseline;">- DA turns the case should be a big part of your analysis.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; vertical-align: baseline;">//Kritiks//:

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; vertical-align: baseline;">- On the aff: I prefer you have a tie to the resolution. I like affs that provide a parametricized advocacy as a point of stasis for the debate. Without a clearly defined departure from the status quo, I’m not sure how the debate functions. That doesn’t mean you have to read a topical plan text, but it does mean you should tell me what kind of discussion of the topic your aff uniquely provides, and how your performance, advocacy, etc. deals with the issues you present.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; vertical-align: baseline;">- On the neg: The more specific your link, the better. Links of omission will not get you far.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; vertical-align: baseline;">- For everyone: I like theories that are firmly rooted in reality (examples of this that I am inclined to read include gender/class/race-based arguments. This doesn't mean I'll automatically vote for these arguments, but I understand them and know their literature better than most of the high theory Ks that are in vogue right now.) I’m unlikely to be well-versed in your high theory literature, so if you can give me concrete examples of how your link story and alt play out, I’ll follow the debate much better. I’ve read some Derrida and Foucault, but I don’t spend my time reading critical theory. Explain your argument as concretely as possible. If the only explanation of the alt you give me is “we’ll rethink thinking,” I’m unlikely to understand how that solves anything.