Jennings,Danielle

Nicknames to call me: Danny J, JENN-DANI-at-isu-dot-edu, Daniel
 * 2011 WDC update* don't call me daniel

Short version: Instead of the "course" being an undergraduate class, the "course" is a debate round. Often, rounds are viewed as extremely isolated events. This is true in some ways -- but we should not ignore that our students have many, many of these isolated events. Over time, the curriculum set for those isolated events adds-up. By way of example only, the "isolated" norm of allowing the Neg to have a credible shot of winning on ASPEC (say from 1997-2006) resulted in tens of thousands of "isolated" debates on the subject. I think that ASPEC debates are very educational, and I wish to continue the trend of allowing the negative to have a credible shot at winning on ASPEC. I think that other sorts of debates are useless because they arn't applicable to other topics, so they won't be able to be run on another topic and thus won't make the debaters better at WINNING, which is what counts. I also just want to set up a course where people have fun. Anything goes. Everyone loved the "new teachers"... They wanted to be well-liked... they let you slack-off or get away with sub-par work. We've all had moments when "we liked the prof because they were an easy A". Then, there was that one teacher that everyone complained about because getting an A was difficult. That teacher was, at times, annoying...but everyone saw that teacher's course as a challenge... and, if you got an A in *that* course... well, it felt like an accomplishment. There is a sentiment in educational circles that a radically open curriculum (a "big tent") causes students to be more invested... And, as the theory goes, they'll then push their own education to new horizons. The theory is based on a fundamental assumption -- that the typical high school student is astonishingly bored with school and that grades no longer can motivate them. Thus, the *have* to be inspired by a radically open criteria. See, much like a certain work of Leonardo Da Vinci, this entire philosophy is a code. To be blunt, that theory often fails in high schools. When my "big tent" younger teachers let me do a book report on "whatever I wanted", I did my report based on things *within* my current horizons because it was less-challenging. I did reports based on the high school debate topic because the hard research was already done. In time, even the student teachers realized that I was gaming the system for convenience and not "radically challenging myself". I didn't care -- I wanted an easy A...
 * To me, judge philosophies *create a curriculum* for a course. **
 * My ultimate goal is to not be the teacher that makes getting an A difficult. Even though I have been teaching for a long time, I want to be like a new teacher. **
 * Everything should be under this framework: If you can't write a book report on it and use it for your classes, then don't run it. If it can't help you or your opponents get an easy A under the "big tent" approach, then it does not meet my curriculum for debate.**

Conflicts: ck mcclatchy (i won the toc), St. George's Middle School of tacoma, idaho state, Greenhill, western idaho, eastern idaho, northern idaho, Coeur d'Alene community college, Greenhill, University of the Pacific, University of Las Vegas at Nevada (not sure if real school, but they paid me with a free suite in Caesar's palace), Rowland Hall, St. Marks, Rowland Hall-St. Marks, Julliard dance school, ingraham, mcgill, newport (congress squad only), Wyoming State Institute philosophy program, Sam Normington.

Tag-team CX: I think about this a lot, so ask me before the round. Usually, i'm ok with it as long as you physically tag your partner in and out of the CX. I would also prefer you tag the other team in and out of the CX, so that I know who is talking and whose Cross-ex it REALLY is. Will you ever figure out the code? No.
 * Tahoma 2012 update*: A team complained that they were sexually harassed by the other team when they were tagged. Please be more responsible.

Long version: Here are all the ways I evaluate debates that I referred to in the short version.

Things I like: Veto Cheto Jack Mcgougan ASPEC OSPEC Topicality JSPEC OSPEC (ontology, duh)

I profess to have an old-school PURE policy paradigm. What the heck does that mean? Look up the strict definition of policy paradigm from awhile back, and you will read that policy meant a judge sat in the back and voted for what he/she felt was the best policy for the United States. In other words, they pretended they were the Queen. EVERYTHING you do in my round should be argued under that framework; I am the Queeen of Sweden. Not specifically any Queen of Sweden, just a hypothetical president. For those worried about or intrigued by the implications, here's a guide. Specifically, I am the wife of King Carl XVI Gustav.



Speaker Points: 0-5: You didn't dress up for the queen 6-8: You read a non-textually competitive CP 9-11: You were too loud 12-14: You did not specify your agent 15: You did not specify an agent of a non-textually competitive CP 16-17.5: You were too loud 18: You were clear 19-22: You have potential as a debater but 23: When I asked for your flows, you did not flow 24-25: You clipped cards 26: You said the word "holocaust" 27-29: eh 29.5: To get a 29.5 you must: - be nice. Shake my hand at the end of the round. - frame the debate like a picture frame - you're olaf - treat your opponents like vermin 29.6: You were nice and shaked my hand after the round but didn't do anything else well. 29.8: You were better than a 29.7 but below 29.9 29.9: You were better than your partner but i am better than you I once gave Ajay Vishwanath one of these 30: You gave one of the best underviews I have ever heard--this would have to be one of the 12 best underviews i've ever heard

I always give the 1n the lowest points. They literally give two constructives. My curriculum as a judge is meant to discourage anyone from ever being a 1n.

I have decided to take off half a speaker point if you don't read a topical plan. I will also take off half a speaker point if you read a plan (so if you read a plan and lose on T you get a full pt off). I will also take off half a point if you don't read a plan.

-An argument without a claim is NOT an argument.
====- I don't believe in the debate. That is, I flow it, and I don't believe it occurs. A note on my method: I put sufficiently different arguments on power point slides. However, I don’t even try to line everything up in the debate—I just flow from the top down on each slide, titling your arguments with catchy headers as you go through the debate ==== - It’s a bit tougher, however, to actually drop something completely when I’m judging, simply because I don’t try to line things up, so dropping something would require me to delete parts of powerpoints.

====*UPS 2012 update* When I say I like Veto Cheto, I don't mean the CP where the president vetos the plan and the congress overrides it. That should be normal means. I like the CP where the president vetos the plan but cheats because he uses two dices.====

Some more notes: Qritiqs: I think that the Q can be a very strategic argument if used correctly. I have been trained as a Buddhist monk for seven years, so I am very susceptible to those sorts of arguments. That being said, you need to win an impact to win the debate. I believe that alternatives and links are useless as they are object-based. I like judging the impact debate because it is just a kwestion of how hard it is. I default to competing interpretations on Q's. If the alternative is a floating PIQ, be sure to tell me in the 2nr so that I can vote. Counterplans: the "permutation" is a mathematical term that has no place in debate. Please do not think you can win with one. I am a good judge for CP's as long as they solve the case better than the AFF and link to the net benefit (and thus are ironic examples of your disad). I default to reasonability in comparing CPs and the AFF. Theory debates: Not enough people talk about the uniqueness to your theory argument. I think that cards that say that international fiat is high or low are particularly useful, for example. Uniqueness determines the direction of everything in theory debates, so make sure you have good, recent evidence. My general leanings: Good: International fiat, Veto Cheto, Process CP's, Letter PIC's, Consult Germany, "Elephant in the room" PIC's, Consult China, Conditions CP's, Bad: Conditionality, Word PIC's, Functionally competitive CP's, Consult Japan and NATO, XO (I'm the Queen!), unconditionality, AFT fiat, Conditionality CP's I DONT UNDERSTAND TEAMS THAT KEEP TELLING ME TO REJECT THE ARG NOT THE TEAM. TO BEGIN WITH, THE ARGUMENT is THE TEAM. AND I, AS YOUR JUSTICE, DO NOT HAVE THE POWER TO REJECT ARGUMENTS OR TEAMS JUST TO MAKE THEM EDIBLE.
 * Gonzaga 2013 update*: My favorite alts are ones where the neg eats the plan text. These become floating PIQ's because they float around the 1n's body of oregon's.
 * UPS 2013 update* It's pronounced Jean-ocide not jen-ocide. A person named Jen once tried to kill me, so every time you say Jenocide I will dock your speaks.

Topicality: You need to meet the negative's interpretation, AFT. NAG, try not to limit out predictability debates. I find the argument that the negative's interpretation limits out debates about predictability to be compelling. I would buy it at a store if it were on sale. I don't think the AFT has to have a CI or a WM to win the debate if they are reasonable people. Here are my general leanings for the transportation topic (this doesn't really matter, since i'll vote for you if you seem like a reasonable person) Def topical: Space escalators, renewable energy, wind-powered cars, this aff Maybe topical: HSR, SPS, ITS, SBSP, NIB, SBSPS, SIB, COIN, CT, FR, NALC, HUDNY Not topical: State block grants, Bicycles, Courts, Space Elevators - I default to competing interpretations of what it means to be reasonability - T-human is a good generic that is winnable against every affirmative except State block grants - If you're arn't reading one of these AFTs you are a boring person and thus are not reasonable As a side note, I believe that topicality applies to more than the plan text. For example, if the aft has cards about things that aren't topical and aren't in the plan text, CALL THEM OUT on it. Even if the plan text is topical, if the cards don't fit under the rez, I will pull the trigger, fire the gun, and make you die. CP competition should be determined by means--but whether it is normal means is up for debate. My default is that the normality in the debate should be neutralized, so the more abnormal the debaters and aff is the more normal the means have to be.
 * Gonzaga 2012 finals update*: I think the team that makes the most lists of things should win (case lists, DA lists, K lists, shopping lists, T lists (T is ground too)).
 * State 2012 update*: When debaters make eye contact with me while standing in solemn silence in the 2ar, it tells me you're a reasonable person.

Latin America topi' update: Def topical: Mexican space escalators, Mexican renewable energy, mexican wind-powered cars, economic engagement over this aff with mexico Maybe Topical: Cuban HS R, Cuban SPS, Cuban ITS, Cuban SBSP, Cuban  NIB, Cuba SBSPS, Cuban SIB, Cuba COIN, Cuban CT, Cuban FR, Cuba NALC, Cuban HUDNY Not topical: Venezuelan space escalators, Venezuelan renewable energy, venezuelan wind-powered cars (economic engagement over this aff with Cuba is probably T, but not inherent b/c they're already communists)

Truth v tech: I think that we need to think about how we relate to the concept of technology. Technology scares me and I think we need to re-evaluate our ontological affair with it, which means thinking about the way that we use things like computers and phones. But I also think that truth doesn't exist and that there is sno (it's snowing in seattle atm so snow puns ahoy) way of snoing anything. Thus, truth v tech is a relevant debate in every debate. I default to reasonability. *UPS 2013 update*: After losing towards the end of level three of [|this] game during a round I was judging I can definitely tell you technology is bad and it is scary what it can do to someone. I spilled coffee all over myself. Disadvantages: make sure to have them in the 2nr if they extend a plan in the 1ar because otherwise you will not have a reason why they are bad. <span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">I think that Uniqueness determines the direction of the impact, but the impact defense debate determines the direction of the link uniqueeness. <span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">Impact calc: If the neg puts a vot <span style="font-family: 'Arial Black',Gadget,sans-serif;">er on it, I will vote on it. I prefer time frame because i'm pretty impatient in general (if it's not going to happen before I go to bed tonight, why should I care?) but the debate is yours! <span style="font-family: 'Arial Black',Gadget,sans-serif;">If you win a thumper to their DA, not only do you automatically get to win the debate since I evaluate thumpers as impact turns, but you also get to physically thump your opponents after the round. <span style="font-family: 'Arial Black',Gadget,sans-serif;">A word about cards: Cards make arguments and so do debaters. Thus, I evaluate each card as though it is an author that is in the room with us, like an imaginary friend of ours. I think we should talk to these people, and treat them with respect--they did come all the way from london to speak to us about the merits of transit. T his means that if you’re the kind of debater who goes nice and slow on the tag and cite and blazes through the evidence like a Ukrainian virus attacking Microsoft Outlook, you’ll just be wasting breath. <span style="font-family: 'Arial Black',Gadget,sans-serif;">*Whitman 2011 update* please don't cite your cards as groups (ex, GAO, The framework institute) because that is quite a crowd to have in a small debate room. <span style="font-family: 'Arial Black',Gadget,sans-serif;">*WDC 2012 update* Please don't read cards from Niet, he smells like shit <span style="font-family: 'Arial Black',Gadget,sans-serif;">Case: I hate case debates. If they're wrong, just win they're not epistemology or competing interpretations. I will probably be on your side anyways if I didn't want to buy the 1ac. I like impact defense debates, but you have to spend the entire 1nr on it to win it. I don't understand "alt causes" being read on case--the alternative is part of the Q. <span style="font-family: 'Arial Black',Gadget,sans-serif;">Framework debates: I think the affirmative should be able to weigh their ontology no matter what. <span style="font-family: 'Arial Black',Gadget,sans-serif;">*National services topic update*: There is no ontology of national services, so I find myself voting negative on presumption unless the aff goes for an noncompetitive CP. <span style="font-family: 'Arial Black',Gadget,sans-serif; line-height: 1.5;">Inherency: I don't flow inherency, so at the end of every debate I read your flo ws of inherency and decide who did the better job at flowing inherency. I think inherency is a SOCKS issue. just SEARCH
 * NAT QUALS 2013 UPDATE* Uniqueness overwhelms the link, if it is true, is probably a reason to vote aff, even if the CP solves the case, or there is dropped case defense. I am also concerned by the practice of reading new answers to 1ac framework arguments in the 1nr. Even if this answer is something like "the K answers this," or the 2nr doesn't go for the K, I think this is probably a reason to reject the team, assuming that the theory argument is put on a new sheet in the 1ar.**

Things I may call out during the debate: Clear--if you're being clear Unclear--if you're being unclear Just right--if you're just right Just wrong--if you're just wrong

UPDATE: I have become increasingly afraid of potatoes, and the things they can do to us. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14.44444465637207px; line-height: 1.5;">Anyone willing to take a Potatoe Pledge, promising to eat non-potatoe at tournament and squad funded meals through the end of the season, will receive an additional speaker point regardless of their approach to debate. This incentive is here to encourage students who eat potatoes to try being non-potatoarian in a setting where it is very easy and realisable. Not only will this have the effect of decreasing the amount of violence our community activley funds but it will also show students what it means to eat vegetarian in a community that, while improving, is clearly still hostile to the suggestion that it is violent. This will not only have an effect in encouraging increasingly better non-potatoe options at debate tournaments but will also show that it is indeed possible to abstain from eating the dismembered parts of potatoes and survive happily.