Gerleman,+Samantha

Edit: Caucus 2013 While my paradigm is basically the same, I haven't judged many tournaments in the past year. This means that my ability to flow as well as follow speed is worse than before, but that being said I can still follow arguments and most moderate spreed. Also, this means that I'm not familiar with the topic so please don't assume I know various topic specific acronyms or other jargon.

My name is Samantha Gerleman and I am currently a second year out. I debated for Des Moines Roosevelt for four years (national circuit LD all four years save for Jan/Feb my senior year when I did policy and PF because of the topic)

The short version: I will vote on anything. I don’t really care for theory for strategic purposes (aka drop them because they were mean) and am very receptive to RVIs or Offensive Counter Interpretations. K’s/unconventional positions are chill. Speed is awesome, but clarity is even better. I have a higher than average threshold for extensions. For more specific questions, please see below.

Random Important Stuff That You Should Probably Read
 * I don’t care if you dress up, sit, stand, listen to music in prep, or use your computer
 * I do care about being respectful to your opponent and not being rude or deceitful. You can be aggressive and confident, I encourage you do to so, but don’t be a tool otherwise your speaks will suffer.
 * I will say clear once as a freebie, after that if you are still unclear I’ll look unhappy and you should hope you fix the problem.
 * If an argument is not on my flow I will not call for it after the round and I will not evaluate it.
 * If an argument is on the flow and there is a question of the legitimacy of evidence or the warrant I will call it after round.
 * I don’t default to truth testing or comparative worlds. If you want to exclude arguments based upon a paradigm, justify said paradigm in round otherwise I won’t exclude a K because of truth testing or an a priori because we evaluate comparative worlds unless there is a warrant for doing so.
 * An extension includes a claim, warrant and impact. I might be lenient on the Aff for time skew reasons. I only vote for extended arguments.

Theory/Topicality
 * If an argument is justified with fairness as a reason to “drop the debater” I am willing to evaluate an RVI or Offensive Counter Interpretation (a la Cathrine Tarsney.) This includes both theory and T.
 * Conversely, if the impact of the argument has the implication of “drop the argument” I am not willing to evaluate an RVI or Offensive Counter Interpretation.
 * I never understood the incentive to go into a round and try to win because you claim someone was unfair to you. Theory is supposed to shape communal norms in a positive way, treat it as such.
 * If a theory or T debate does happen please weigh between standards otherwise I am much more comfortable washing theory and voting elsewhere on the flow.

Critical Arguments/Kritiks
 * K’s are probably my favorite position. Do well with one and you will be rewarded.
 * K’s should have alts unless you have a very good reason why you don’t need one.
 * Be able to explain your rhetoric in common language. Chances are I will understand your obscure rhetoric but for fairness reasons your opponent needs to be able to as well.
 * Slow down if you are reading an un-common strat

Other Policy arguments
 * Please only run a CP when it makes sense to. Most Affs won’t present a plan so competition or mutual exclusivity can be iffy and some topics don’t lend themselves to a CP because of a lack of fiat which can make things harder to evaluate.
 * Disads are a similar story. Make sure there is a clear link to the Aff.
 * Politics Disads are dumb in LD, I want them to die.
 * Plans are fine, make sure to slow down and be clear for the plan text.

Speaks I try to give a 27 for an average job. You are very hard pressed to get a 30 from me, but it can be done. Clash, humor, weighing, and good argument coverage will get you good speaks. Being rude, under-covering things, not being responsive, and making un-strategic arguments will get you low speaks.