Williams,+Candice

About Me: I was a policy debater at Cornell University from 2004-2007. I am currently a master's student at the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee and I currently support the debate team at Rufus King International High School in Milwaukee.

Judge Philosophy: I am open to most arguments and presentation styles (including performance affs and kritiks) but you need to do the work for me. Topicality is a voting issue and //never // a reverse voting issue. Debates should be reasonable and provide equitable ground. Clash is good. If you are an AFF and someone is running a K against you, it is your responsibility to engage the K and rigorously challenge the ALT and its solvency. Similarly, if you are a NEG running a K, then you need to explain how your argument (framework or otherwise) interacts with the 1AC arguments. Clash is good. I will not do extensive impact analysis for teams who don't put the effort in the round. Thus, I will always lean in favor of the team who does a better job of explaining their arguments and how their arguments interact with the opposing teams. Clash is good. I generally don't vote for arguments that are "dropped" on one sheet if they are adequately answered by work elsewhere on the flow, particularly for novice or JV teams. While I generally don't have an ideological investment in the round, I am not persuaded by ontologically violent arguments.

I generally only dock speaker points for debaters who engage in malicious ad hominem or cross reading/clipping.