Burdt,+Lauren


 * y'all can put me on the email chain -** ** lauren.burdt@gmail.com **


 * updated sept 2017**


 * This is my fourth year as the LD coach at Millard North in Omaha, NE. I graduated from Ankeny (IA) in 2011 and currently work at the National Speech & Debate Association. (My job is literally to give free money to speech/debate teams - [|get in on the action].)**


 * I strongly believe that debate should be an inclusive space. As long as you keep it that way, you can do whatever you want. Below is a laundry list of "things that might irritate me on any given day" and general preferences, but feel free to change them by blowing my mind.**

Coaching conflicts: Millard North (NE), Brookfield East SK (WI), Clovis North JS (CA), Palm Harbor University KG (FL)

__**Short version**__ My favorite rounds are when debaters engage in each others' args substantively, whatever format that may take. I flow your speeches straight down, which means collapsing, weighing, big picture analysis, and explict comparison will get you far. I give higher speaks to students that read creative positions and clearly know a lot about whatever they choose to read, be it Lacan, Ripstein, permissibility, the topic [gasp].


 * __Long version__**
 * __Speed__**
 * Speed should be fine. I will yell slow and clear as much as needed.
 * START YOUR SPEECH SLOW. Please. Please? Pretty please. I don't know how else to ask.
 * Like 85% of you make author names incomprehensible. You not only need to take a pause after the author name, but before it as well.
 * You would be doing yourself a favor to speak at a conversational pace for interps and ROB/standard texts, and slow down significantly for theory underviews and any one sentence "a, b, c," analyses in frameworks. I give little leeway on extensions when you don't.
 * You're reading this and being like "duh lauren", but actually half the time you don't do any of this :(


 * __Theory/Topicality__**
 * I've been judging a little more theory and a lot more T lately, and still feel like I may be a bit behind with the hip and trendy norms. I'm probably a fine judge for you in prelims, but not sure you'd want me on your elims panel. If I am, you're better off collapsing and weighing the shit out of something than forcing me to wade through a sea of blips.
 * I think that theory debates can be cool, unique, and organic. The more specific the violation the better - in front of me, you're better off running more nuanced T on a plan aff than "plans bad" theory. That said, my preference would be that you engage in a different way if reasonable.
 * I am not persuaded by "competing interps = risk of offense on theory is sufficient" and will most likely look to substance if there is terminal defense on a shell
 * I think you should extend all parts of a shell throughout the round, even if conceded. It can be one sentence. But I still think I should hear "extend fairness is a voter" come out of your mouth in the 2.
 * If you run theory/T against someone who has no idea what theory is, I will make helllaaaa leeway for substantive responses that aren't in the typical structure and treat them as terminal defense because come on
 * I enjoy a good T debate in which there are competing methodologies of what debate should look like. Substantive T debates (T acts as turn to aff method or args of that sort) are always, always more preferable than "fairness first, don't evaluate the K" arguments.


 * __Framework/Tricks__**
 * This is how I debated, and I feel comfortable evaluating these rounds.
 * I think the less-sketchy (sketchy = hidden, one sentence, shifty about it in cx, warrantless, etc.) deployment of things like contingent standards, skep triggers, permissibility, etc. can be cool.
 * AFC hurts my soul. That includes ABC, AEC, APC, and whatever else you youngfolk have come up with these days. I'll vote on it, but I'd prefer not to hear these debates.

__**Plan/DA/CP whatev**__
 * Sure. I love and am always impressed by great, topic-specific prep
 * I'm pretty sure I understand most "debate lingo", but for some reason, I've had an issue with some of the jargon that's thrown around in these rounds. I'm honestly pretty sure some of you are making shit up, like "X is a net benefit to the internal link of the uniqueness which takes out the competition and shields the link so the alt can't perm the squo", like excuse me

__**Critical**__
 * This is what I coach, and I generally feel comfortable evaluating these rounds.
 * People have started reading the authors/cards/cases my kids run in front of me. I don't really care but let it be known that I don't have any particular preference for or against hearing these args/Ks in general
 * I dock speaks when you over-use your author's jargon, particularly while trying to clarify the position in cx
 * Please establish some kind of framework that allows me to evaluate impacts (role of ballot, role of judge, standard, whatever). I do think ROB args are generally poorly warranted, impact justified, and have no explicit appeal to the ballot.
 * ROBs that are well done are cool. I really like ROB/Js that deviate from the common "you're a critical educator!" "combat structural violence!" norm, and creativity in this area leads to some of my favorite debates. I particularly like args that make normative or descriptive claims about a part of the world (academia, text, literature) and use those to make implications about what model of debate is best.
 * K affs are fine, non-topical affs are fine, and I'm open to different interpretations of what it means to be topical. Try to avoid embedded clash/be very explicit on T version of aff flow.


 * __ Cross ex __**
 * Use the full 3 min of cx for cx please.
 * If you want me to hear a concession during your prep just be like "lauren pay attention", otherwise I'm definitely not paying attention.
 * YOUR SASSY BANTER IN CX SERIOUSLY HURTS ME, LIKE CAUSES ME PHYSICAL PAIN. It's not funny; it is rude. When you're like "lauren that was the best 1ar you've ever heard, why did I get 26 speaks", I will recite this line from my paradigm.


 * __Speaks__**
 * When you ask if I disclose speaks, my response will be "no, but they're fine" even if they're not fine.
 * Speaks given out based on strategy. I average a 28. I try to make them relative to the rest of the pool.
 * I've judged the same two positions all year. I don't think I'm capable of giving out higher than a 29 in these rounds anymore because good golly I'm bored.
 * I couldn't care less what you're doing (sitting, laptop, walking around the room on your hands while you read the NC, playing death grips for the first 4 minutes of the AC, etc.) as long as you're respectful.
 * I will dock speaks if you're incapable of putting docs on a flash drive in a whatever I arbitrarily deem a reasonable amount of time.
 * No-prep 2ars and speeches where you sit down early DO NOT impress me.

__**Content warnings**__
 * If you are reading a __description__ of violence in your args/narratives, I think it's probably a good practice to give a content warning before the round. If someone asks you not to read it, it should be as easy as removing the part of your case that is descriptive of violence.
 * I do not believe this includes post-fiat links to racism, sexism, etc. I realize that those kinds of things may be triggering for some students, but that is an issue that should probably be handled by a coach.
 * I won't dock speaks for failing to do so and I think that there needs to be a more in-depth discussion of how this should work, but I've been in situations that have made me think this is probably a good norm for now.

__**Disclosure**__
 * I'll vote on disclosure theory, but I tend to think that the more specific interps (nonT affs, broken plan/advocacy texts, etc.) are way more compelling than something that mandates that whole-res stock affs are disclosed. To be clear, I think all of you should disclose all of your positions. To also be clear, I do not enjoy listening to disclosure theory even a little bit. If you're debating whether to run it in front of me & have something else you can read, I'd err on the side of not. If you're debating whether to run disclosure when I'm on a panel and the other judges love disclosure theory, please go for it.

__**Misc**__
 * I'm more lenient on aff extensions and extensions of dropped args, but I want at least "extend contention 1 jones card that says living wage closes wage gap because X".
 * Don't tell me to "gut-check" something. Make arguments.
 * I don't want to hear violations I can't verify or new shells in the 2ar or flashing theory or anything of the sort.
 * I have absolutely ZERO tolerance for the teams that play fuckfuck before outrounds with disclosure of the aff, the flip, etc.
 * I'll answer questions after the round for sure, but there will come a point where I'm like "meh better luck next time I need to go".


 * If there was anything I was unclear about, feel free to have me clarify before round or email lauren.burdt@gmail.com. If you need to reach me immediately, facebook is the best way. **