Earley,+Katherine


 * Judging philosophy:**

I’m a senior Political Science/Sociology major at the University of the Pacific, where I compete in limited prep IE’s and am a nationally competitive parliamentary and LD debater. Before I was at UOP, I competed in various IEs and policy debate at Yuba College and Los Rios.

Quick things you need to know for prep time/when you see I’m going to be in the back of the room: barring anything horribly offensive (racism, sexism, impact turning dehumanization), do whatever you want at whatever speed you want, and weigh your impacts!


 * LD specific stuff:** again, do whatever you want at whatever speed you want. I like to see good clash. I feel as though about 90% of the LD rounds I’ve judged this year were “ships passing in the night.” I.e. you read your counter contentions, don’t really address the case, and don’t tell me how your contentions interact. PLEASE do not do this! I will be a very happy judge if you tell me how exactly your contentions interact with theirs. Oh, and //compare worlds.// Tell me why your value and value criteria are superior and should be preferred over your opponent’s.

Weigh the impacts or //implications// of your contentions. Not only will I be much happier and probably reward you with good speaks and lots of praise, but you’ll spare yourself from letting me weigh things for you. Trust me, you do not want me makes decisions about why a certain value is superior. You will not like how it turns out. Oh, and be savvy and humorous in cross examination without being a jerk—I love to see good wit. J


 * Policy and Parli:**


 * K’s:** Critical affs? Go for it. Reading the K on the neg? Absolutely. I like to see creative alternatives with solid alternative solvency. Root causing or internal link turning the affirmative is a smart move for me. I read a lot of Nietzsche, in both my academics and in round, also read Empire. Familiar with a decent chunk of feminist lit and some queer theory, as well as literature about trauma/mourning. Don’t assume I will be familiar with your authors, however: please be clear and provide well warranted analysis of what the thesis of the K is.


 * CP’s:** Topical, nontopical, consult, alt agent, PIC—I don’t care what type of counterplan you read in front of me, just make sure it’s mutually exclusive and solves the aff. For the aff: permutations rock. Make them. Explain how they resolve the links to the DA/ net ben.


 * DA’s:** Obviously, read them. There is a difference between a DA and a case turn. I appreciate a good mix of both.


 * Theory:** Read it, but know I have a pretty high threshold for a lot of theory. However, I’ve become something of a theory hack in my own debate career, so let me amend this: I have a high threshold for theory //when it isn’t debated well.// If you are a savvy theory debater and can make it not mind-numbingly boring, go for it.

T: **I really, really prefer proven abuse.** How do you get out of this if there isn’t proven abuse? Arguments about prep skew are one way. If there isn’t proven abuse, I recommend spending a lot of “world comparison” between the world of your interpretation and your opponent’s—tell me why I should vote for the “better view” of debate.

CP theory: I’m not super sympathetic to conditionality bad. If you run it, debate it well, just as you would for T. (Neg teams—I don’t think conditionality is inherently abusive, so you should be in the clear if you have good answers. I do, however, need more analysis than “hard debate is good debate!”) Other types of CP theory, such as PICs bad, are cool if you have good standards and lots of analysis.

Procedurals such as “you have to take a question” have an amazingly high threshold for me. Negative, just answer them and move on.


 * This all being said, if you paint me a clear, engaging story, I’ll vote on theory.** DO NOT half collapse to theory, i.e. don’t collapse to T and a DA. If you find yourself in the unfortunate position of having to collapse to theory, if you do so in a manner that is humorous and not repetitive, I’ll appreciate it (and reward you with good speaks)


 * Misc. stuff:**


 * Speaker points:** I love to see witty, entertaining debaters. Read what you’re comfortable with. I don’t mind banter. I do mind being a jerk to your opponents. Keep it classy, entertaining, and fun (or, at least, powerful/passionate) and it will reflect well in speaks.


 * Road maps/thank you’s/timing:** road maps are not timed, please don’t steal prep.

Overall, have fun and do what you love. Debate is great.