Wolfson,+Hannah


 * USN 2017**


 * Michigan 2021**


 * Judged a bunch of rounds on the education topic when I was working at SDI (but not much outside of that)**


 * Pressed for time? Just read the bolded parts.**


 * __TL;DR pre-round version:__**

I’ve had experience with pretty much every type of aff and neg strat. **You can read whatever your little heart desires in front of me, but please explain it well.** Have fun and don’t be a jerk. **Also remember: clarity, clarity, clarity.**


 * Email chains over flashing** if you can. Yes, I like to be included on those. **My email is hannahwolfson25@gmail.com.**


 * __ Long prefs version: __**

A few things you should know:


 * 1) **Clarity over speed.** I would much rather judge a debater that makes 5 clear arguments than someone who mumbles their way through 25 blippy ones I can’t flow. This means if I’m not able to get something down because you were unclear, I’ll be more sympathetic to the other team claiming they dropped it because they couldn’t understand you. To quote/paraphrase Kevin Bancroft, **“I will accept ‘that was not words’ as an answer to an argument if it was, in fact, not words.”**
 * 2) When it comes to **tech vs. truth, I lean more towards truth.** Does this mean I’ll be interventionist and do the work for you? Absolutely not. What it does mean is that **the other team** (justifiably) **destroying any god-awful cards you read with** sound **analysis/indicts** instead of with evidence **means it will be hard for you to win** that argument.
 * 3) **Clipping cards is an automatic loss if your opponents catch you doing it**, but if you’re going to claim an ethics violation, **have solid proof** (like a video). **If your opponents don’t catch you doing it but I do, I’ll call you out and drop your speaks, but** probably **won’t drop you** unless it’s egregious.
 * 4) **Cross-ex is great.** Please try to utilize it to its full potential. There's almost nothing more frustrating than watching a bad CX, and **a good one will definitely help your speaks.**
 * 5) **I don’t take prep for flashing/emailing** as long as it’s not excessive.
 * 6) **I don’t vote on blatantly offensive arguments** (i.e. straight up racism good etc.). Use your common sense - **if it could come out of Donald Trump's mouth and be considered par for the course, don't read it in front of me.**
 * 7) **I’m neutral on tag team CX** if your partner defers to you.
 * 8) Things that will decrease your speaks: offensive arguments (see above), being an ass to your partner/opponents, excessive flashing/emailing time, being unclear, stealing prep (you’re not sneaky, I can see when you’re doing it)
 * 9) Things that will increase your speaks (outside of the obvious): good CX, strategic cross applications that you pull out in the final rebuttals and blow my mind, puns (I don’t care if they’re bad), jokes (plus .1 if they’re about any Michigan debater, people I know in general, or whatever meme is a thing right now).


 * How I evaluate specific arguments:**


 * “Nontraditional”/K affs – I have run the gamut in terms of which affs I've read**, from heg-good-hell-yeah-America-big-stick policy affs to soft-left framing contention affs to affs without a plan. **I like it when the aff relates to the resolution** in some way. **That doesn’t mean you have to have a plan**, but the further you go from the rez, the likelier I’ll be to vote neg on T.

My opinion on T vs. K affs is best summarized by Viveth Karthikeyan: “**Neg -- go for T not framework.** Framework is a control of form (i.e. you cannot present alternative types of evidence, you cannot perform, etc.) Topicality is a modest limit on content (i.e. we should be discussing the topic). Caveat: just saying T =/= framework without explaining the argument is not sufficient.”


 * Kritiks** – **I’m a very good judge for IR Ks, reps Ks, and stuff like cap, I understand the basic theories behind a lot of postmodernism/high-theory arguments, and I’m decent on social location-based Ks**. However, please **don’t blow off explanation and contextualization.** I love it when teams pull lines from aff evidence or point to specific moments in CX to support their link stories. I think **having an impact external to the aff is a good thing**, and that alts are usually terrible, so **the neg should devote time to explaining how the alt** functions/**solves**. Also, if you want to and if the aff doesn’t call you on it before hand, kicking the alt and going for the K as a linear DA to the aff is always really fun to watch. **Floating PIKs are probably not a reason to reject the team**, but it’ll make me a lot more sympathetic to the perm.


 * On framework, I’m neutral to** the question of **weighing the aff**, and you’re probably not going to win that the neg shouldn’t get Ks or alts. **I am totally down to vote on K tricks** (unless it’s 3-word “fiat is illusory”; just read a DA to fiat if you’re going that route). Too many framework debates devolve into one team reading their blocks, then the other team reading their blocks, and no clash happening at all. Please **engage with the other team’s FW.**


 * Concerning the death K** (because I guess I have to put this section in), **I don’t think it’s a morally repugnant argument.** I used to be very opposed, until I started reading it in high school and getting into the nuances. **In front of me, you might want to read death as more of a fear of death thing** and less of a suicide thing.


 * Topicality – I love topicality.** That being said, there are some things you should know before you immediately decide to go for it because of my paradigm. First of all, **my love of T and the fact that I used to go for it all the time in high school mean that if you debate it poorly, I will be annoyed** and probably drop your speaks (my threshold is pretty high). Secondly, when I say I love T, that means **I love good T debates, not that I will immediately vote neg if you go for T or aff if you answer it well**. **I generally default to competing interpretations** and I love descriptions of what the topic would look like under your/their interps (**caselists are a good thing**).


 * Theory – I’m down to judge a theory debate**, and I really have no predisposition to sides when theory is run as a as a reason to reject the argument, but **I most likely won’t vote on theory as a reason to reject the team unless it’s condo (or it’s dropped)**. On the condo question, I really don’t care; just win the argument. **You can win that one condo is bad or 10 condo are good in front of me**; it just depends on how well it’s debated. Please **slow down and do line by line** on theory, as it makes it easier for me to judge.


 * Counterplans – I love them**, but I’ll be very quick to pull the trigger on theory if your CP isn’t legit (as a reason to reject the argument, see the section above). **This means plan-plus CPs** (not condition), **consult CPs, and CPs with like 10 different conditional planks are probably bad. Agent CPs, PICs, multiplank CPs with a solvency advocate and condition CPs are great.** A really underutilized strat is a UQ CP+a DA. I really like that one.


 * Disads – I like DAs**. The unfortunate thing about high school is that most DAs are read with hyper-generic links that require a ton of spin to win. With that in mind, **case specific disads (or even just hyper specific link cards) are awesome. Politics is fine**, but midterms might be too soon to predict (also, Trump probably makes election-based DAs harder to win; affs, exploit that!). **I love really unique, well-explained turns-case stories.**

That's pretty much it. If you have any other more specific questions, email me or ask me before the round and I'll be happy to answer :).

Something to keep in mind: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRsfOGJ5lZg <-that’s how I feel when judging a bad round. Don’t make me feel like this.