Woods,+Jen

Jen Woods Glenbrook South

I debated for a private high school in Wisconsin whose program is now defunct (I think?). Be advised that I did not debate in college (my school had no team and I was not about to start one) and my coaching experience is negligible. I have, however, been involved in policy debate since age 12, and have judged at least a handful of tournaments on each of the last 9 resolutions. I am currently in graduate school, so I know very little about the current resolution, and am prone to fits of narcolepsy. However, I am reasonably intelligent, learn quickly, and have a degree from a Big Important University, if that helps.
 * Generally**. I feel that debate should be an intellectually stimulating endeavor, and I expect teams to exercise critical thinking skills, as opposed to hearing [insert name of philosopher here] and automatically reaching for a page of answers from which they then read blindly with little concern for relevance, applicability, or sequential numbering (I happen to like sequential numbering). I flow card content, so articulation is helpful (I really don’t care how fast you go, so long as you are CLEAR). Mumblers will be warned, but if they persist, I will get crabby and speakers points may suffer.
 * A word on evidence**. Please limit yourself to what the card actually says and any reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom. If you fail to do this either through selective editing or poor critical reasoning skills, be prepared for me to substitute my interpretation of the evidence for yours and vote on the issue accordingly. There are several circumstances in which I’ll read your cards: I want to see what it says; I want to see if it says what you say it says; I want to see if it really “has no warrants”; I have previously read the author and I’m surprised s/he has said what you say s/he has said; I have read the author and want to snicker at some absurd turn of phrase or logical shortcoming; etc. I am often surprised how reading evidence after the round changes the round dramatically.
 * Arguments**. I will consider voting on just about any argument depending on the circumstances. I will generally not vote on T absent some definitional abuse by the Aff. If Neg wants to go for it, they should really commit in 2NR. I prefer unconditional CPs, as they usually promote better debate, but will not vote a team down because they run a CP (or any other argument) dispositionally or conditionally. I’ve read most of the Kritik authors, and because I am pretentious, I have (sometimes strong) opinions about them. Don’t let that scare you off, as I vote for critical Affs and Ks on the Neg all the time. However, know your argument, and make sure the author is saying what you want him (or very occasionally her) to say. I don’t much care for any of the spec arguments, and I try to vote on something else wherever possible.

Above all, I just want to see a good Aff against a Neg with a coherent strategy in a round with lots of clash and solid arguments.

I respond well to questions, so if you have any, please ask.