Alme,+Jenny

Jenny Alme Harker School San Jose, CA (formerly Jenny Heidt from The Westminster Schools)

Flowing

All of you need to flow. Stop just reading the speech doc. It will hurt your points to answer arguments that were not read or do any of the other ridiculous things that I have seen teams do in the last few years. I suspect that about 10 of my decisions last year were heavily or entirely decided based on dropped arguments that were not in a speech doc or massive time allocation problems caused by answering things that were not read.

Paperless?

I think that it is good for the community (and inevitable) but paperless teams need to make sure that everyone has comfortable access to the evidence. Pro tip: set up an email chain before I even get there and we will waste less time watching everyone fumble with flash drives. Saying "mark that card" without physically marking it is not OK. The other team needs to be given a new speech doc with the mark (a return, the auto break mark that Verbatim has etc). Just making the announcement "mark the card" is basically clipping because the whole room cannot memorize when you made the announcement.

Style?

Most of you need to slow down. Either: 1) you are not really gaining time because you are gasping/stumbling/repeating yourself/mumbling/interjecting meaningless phrases like "in a world in which we win" and "we will always win that" in an effort to go fast or 2) you are speaking in a monotone that makes cards sound like a meaningless buzz. I give higher points to debaters who have natural sounding voices and breathing patterns + have speeches that are dense in substance/efficient. If you can do those things while speaking quickly, great!

Also, be professional. No swearing, no rudeness, do not start out speeches by saying that you are killing the other team, etc. Also, CX is usually really boring, not "embarrassing."

CX?

It is a speech—it should be 3 minutes long (no “I’ll take prep for an extra question”). Also, stand up, face me, and ask questions. Intervene in a partner’s CX if you have to but with the same caution you would have if interrupting your partner during any other speech. ...

My argument preferences are below but they rarely matter all that much. I have voted for consult, non-plan affs, ASPEC etc. Ultimately, I will be flow oriented so just do your best.

Topicality?

I will vote on T if the interpretation is well developed and predictable (not arbitrarily designed to exclude the aff). Do what you need to but your 1NC will be more impressive if it is free of throw-aways. I do not think that the aff should have to specify more than what the resolution demands.

Critiques?

Neg on the K: I do not mind them. You are better off if the K turns the case or has a clear DA to the case than if there is some decision rule argument like “no value to life.” Pulling links from the 1AC, or giving example of how the K is the cause of the harms, or explaining how it would turn the aff in real world terms also helps. Try to adapt the K to the aff. I have found myself voting for Ks that link to the action of the plan more often than other types.

Aff versus the K: I have seen a handful of teams massively invest in framework and lose because they drop so much else or forget to impact framework very well. Theory can be OK/needed against Ks that are all framework themselves but DAs to the alternative and solvency arguments are usually stronger.

Affs running the K: You ought to have a topical plan. And, you need to be straight up when answering CX questions re: your framework. “Do state bad arguments link to your aff?” “Would causing a nuclear war theoretically outweigh your aff?” “Are politics DAs relevant?” You cannot avoid these questions without your speaker points taking a big hit and me giving the neg substantial leeway to characterize your aff however they like. The bottom line is that you can have critical advantages but you need to defend a plan and the consequences of your worldview.

CPs?

Dispositionality is a mess. I do not have much of an opinion regarding one conditional option. Multiple, especially multiple contradictory, conditional positions are more of a problem. Conditioning, consult, utopian CPs (anarchy etc), or CPs that PIC out of things not in the plan (such as the “immediacy” of the plan) are very vulnerable to theory.

Final notes?

Qualifications are a big deal if you bring up the issue. Positions entirely written by quacks (wipeout comes to mind) can be beaten without counter-evidence if the debaters make smart analytics. Warrants also matter so make comparisons.

Card clipping is serious cheating and I will intervene and vote against you if I am sure that you were clipping.