Abi Glaum (She/her/hers)

I'm a former Stevens Point Area Senior High varsity policy debater studying Psychology and French at UMN, with a minor in Native American Studies. I've judged for the past three years, but I'm not as fluent in debate as I once was, so take it easy. I'm closest to being a policymaker judge but I honestly just want to see what you're good at. Stick to what ya know.

Speed- Speed doesn't bother me as long as your signposting is clear. I want a roadmap before you start and if it changes during the round you need to let me and the other team know. I will say "clear" three times before I stop flowing and start playing pac-man on my laptop, so try to enunciate clearly

T- I'm not too keen on voting on Topicality just because I don't think it's particularly useful for education. If you do run T anyway, then go for it, but please make sure it's not the only thing on your 2nr because I will not vote on it exclusively.

K- I have a pretty big soft spot for Ks. The sign of a good K debate to me is one that shows y'all really have an intricate knowledge of what it means, not that you're repeating the lit and trying desperately to apply it to this round. My biggest pet peeve is when teams run a K but are v obviously unfamiliar with the actual stances of the authors and are just regurgitating the general structure of the ideas.

Disads- My fav disads include but are not limited to: Elections (or any politics DA), anything involving Space, or econ-based DAs. I don't have any DAs that I specifically don't like.

CPs- I'm fine with cps but there needs to be a sufficient amount of analytics of why I should prefer it over the aff plan. I need you to line up the net benefits and explain exactly why yours is better, I won't do the work for you.

If you have any questions for me feel free to ask me before round. I allow open CX, but I don't want to see the opposite partner dominating the answering portion. My email is abiglaum@gmail.com.

About Me

-In high school, I was a debater for all 4 years. I bounced back and forth between policy and pf every year. I graduated from high school in 2016 and have been assisting and judging every year since.

-I have mild Tourettes, so if I clear my throat or make slight odd movements it has nothing to do with you

Paradigm

--One thing I can say is that I flow impacts pretty heavily, so overall I am more of a policymaker.

Things I like

-I LOVE framework and topicality! If a plan isn't topical I have no reason to vote for it!!

-I absolutely love being told what to vote on! You could be the best debater of all time, but if you can't tell me why your ads/disads are better then I have no reason to vote for you! We all know that something like nuclear war is bad. But if the other team gives evidence saying that it's not and you don't respond, I am going to vote as if it were not a bad thing.

Things I don't like

-I am fine with Open CX, but if it's your cross you should be doing the majority of the talking, not your partner.

-Please don't talk to your partner during their speeches.

-I am fine with speed, but I am not a fan of it when it becomes excessive. And it DEFINITELY can be excessive at times. As long as I can understand you I will continue to flow. But faster debating doesn't equal better debating.

Feel free to include me on your email chain if you'd like. kinkintherope@gmail.com I rarely follow along with the speech doc though.

If you have any questions feel free to ask!

Quick Summary: If I had to label myself as a specific paradigm, I would label myself as a picky tabs judge. I will vote on any argument as long as you analyze why that argument is a round-winner. I like to see good solid debates where there are fewer issues and more depth of argumentation. I like to see 2NR’s and 2AR’s analyze what the key argument in the round is and why they are winning that argument. I don’t like sloppy rebuttals that don’t resolve arguments clearly. In rounds like that, I am forced to intervene which is not what you or I want. I will default to policymaker if not given a clear alternative framework.

DAs: I prefer coherent DAs with solid links to the aff plan. Generic DAs are fine also. DAs are the easiest negative arguments for me to weigh in the round, but I still need some analysis in the 2NR as to why they are a round winner. Don’t just say DA turns case and move on. Tell me why the DA turns case, and it will make it easier for me to vote for you.

CPs: CPs need to be competitive. I’m open to topical CPs, but I need you to explain why it still competes. I believe that the negatives need to prove that their CP is competitive. On the other side, I need affs to really explain their perms and how they prove the CP is not competitive, Don’t just read a ton of random perms in the 2AC and extend them blindly in the 1AR. Give me analysis of why the perms prove the CP doesn’t compete. If you expect to win on a perm in the 2AR, I need to hear at least a decent explanation from the 2AC on it.

T: I am not the best judge for a T debate. Too often, T debates devolve into generic standards and voters being thrown about without any clash or analysis. I find the argument of reasonability very persuasive. Overall, don’t run T just to show off your “cool” definition; run it if you feel there is actual abuse in round. Please weigh your standards and voters especially in later rebuttals.

K: Ks need framework. Preferably in the 1NC, but I will also accept 2NC framework as well. Tell me why the K comes before the case otherwise I default to a policy maker framework. For a team to win on a K in front of me I need a solid analysis of what the framework is, how the K links to the plan, what is the impact/implication of the K, and what is the alt/role of the ballot. I will accept a reject the aff alt, but I really like alts that allow me to embrace something with my ballot. A cohesive, well analyzed alt that explains what a ballot for the K means is much more likely to be a round winner for me. I am not familiar with a lot of K lit, so I’d prefer any Ks run to be well explained. Again, make sure your 2NR explains the K link, implication, alt and framework. For the aff, earlier comments on perms apply here as well.

Theory: I am not the best judge for a theory debate. I would only vote a team down on theory if they were doing something truly abusive in round. Other than that, I usually at worst will reject the argument if the team drops the theory violation on it. On questions of CP status, I usually err neg, but if the affs present a convincing violations I could vote on it. The same goes for “cheater” CPs. If you are going for a theory violation, ultimately, I need good analysis in the final rebuttals as to why it is a major issue in the round.

Performance Debate/K Affs: I need convincing solvency and framework arguments from the aff team. I find arguments about clash and portable skills very convincing, so if you are running a K aff in front of me you need to have good answers. I will vote for performance/K affs, but to win it in front of me you need a clear, convincing answer to why you chose not to talk about the topic. I am not the best judge for this type of debate.

I debated for SPASH until 2012 and I studied English and Philosophy during Undergrad. My academic background and my experiences make me pretty open to all types of arguments including Topicality, the K, and theory. I'm a tabs judge and I'll vote on almost anything as long as you're actually making and supporting an argument. Don't assume I'm making any connections for you within your arguments (or between speeches...). While I will vote on Topicality of theory, be careful if you decide to commit to these arguments.

I consider myself a biased tabs judge. I will vote on any arguments, but I tend to need a far more compelling story than dropped blip args before I'll vote on T and theory. Tell me what the in-round abuse is, paint me a picture of the ragged corpse of debate caused by voting for arguments of the kind your opponent is making, regale me with a description of the bitter tears of your mother when she contemplates the fact that conditional counterplans will continue in debate, whatever-just make it strong, believable, and give it impacts that demand immediate action on my part. In general, I'll default to "reject the arg not the team" without a quite good reason to do otherwise.

I'm happy to hear and vote on critiques, but I would ask you to actually do some critiquing when you run them By this I mean that the link flow is the most important flow on the K, and that it's easy to convince me that a well-explained link is applicable across the flow.  It also means that I don't buy that there is such a thing as the "risk of a link" to the K-either you are making well-warranted indictments of the plans underlying assumptions and representations or you are not.  Finally, it means that I don't default to the perm without genuine argumentation-if the neg is putting in genuine link work, the idea that the perm might somehow be a thing to default to strikes me as facially ludicrous.  For affs, this means that a robust challenge to the link and a careful delineation of exactly what your plan entails is an easy A strategy.

In general, I prize rounds involving debaters actually doing some real evidence and argument analysis, and that's probably an easy way to impress me as well. You're better off going for one very strong argument that you can support with detailed analysis than ten little positions and a lot of screaming about nuclear war. I'm rarely impressed by claims that one drop on a 20 point flow is necessarily round-decisive. Do your impact analysis, as well-within the limitations outlined above, I will weigh the round as the debaters tell me to.

I don't often call for ev unless it's questioned in the round or I think it's highly fishy. I am very willing to yell at you about dubious ev, and to drop you if I catch you with flat out lies or out of context cards. I'll make that judgment whether or not the other team brings it up, but I will only drop you on it absent a team challenge if I know for an absolute fact that your ev was cut out of context or has similar strong issues. Still, I read a lot, and may have seen your literature...

As far as speed goes, I'm fine with it, but probably not as good as some about hearing everything you do in a very fast round. If I'm starting to miss arguments or cards (and I try to flow your warrants as well as your cards), or if you start mumbling, I'll ask you to slow down or clear up, and I need you to respect that. If I ask you to do this a couple times, you're better off pretending I said that I insist on conversational speed.

Email: Charles.p.russell@outlook.com

PF Paradigm – I come from a policy debate background and until recently have been almost exclusively a policy judge. Due to this, I know that I tend to view rounds under a somewhat policy framework. What is the plan, what are the problems, and how does the plan solve these problems? I also understand that not every PF topic is going to fit nicely into this mold. To help mitigate this tendency I am looking primarily to the quality of argumentation in the round.

What does this mean for you?

· I am looking for a round where the debaters are clear and understandable, willing and able to give good arguments.

· I much prefer a single quality argument over 5-10 short arguments with no substance and I ultimately want the debaters to tell me why the world is better under their plan or side of the topic than the opposing team.

· When presenting impacts please make sure that they are realistic. I don’t want Bob yelling at his dog to cause a nuclear war, but I am willing to listen to geopolitical tension leading to war.

· Give me a reason to vote for you. Tell me what is important in the round and why it is important. If you don’t, I default to a utilitarian evaluation of the round.

· I am perfectly willing to listen if you have evidence that says a source is bad, but you need to have evidence. I’m not going to drop a card just because you don’t personally like an author. In addition, saying that a source is biased can be a decent attack, but you need to give me evidence that disproves the source in addition to this.

Ultimately, if you focus on good argumentation, you should do just fine in front of me.

Policy - I, like my coach before me, have an old-school policy paradigm. What this means is that I look at the round and evaluate it based on what I feel is the best policy for the United States under the given resolution. In the round, you should argue everything under the assumption of that framework.

Speed – I am not a fan of speed. I understand that you are going to need to speak faster than a normal talking speed and that is fine given the time constraints in the round but there is no need to speak at the extreme speeds that are becoming more and more common. I am a great proponent of depth over breadth in debate. The more reasonable your speed the better you will likely find yourself doing in front of me.

Topicality – This is something that I feel can be put to great use and I have no problem seeing it in the round. That said, there are a couple of conditions. First, the voter in front of me is always jurisdiction, if you can reasonably prove that the Aff being presented is outside of the topic area I am likely to vote for T. Second, I am not a huge technical T judge. I much prefer that in round abuse or potential abuse is spelled out for me rather than someone trying to tell me that we should win T because the other team didn’t answer every small technical detail of a T argument.

Advantages and Disadvantages – This is the bread and butter of my judging paradigm. This is where I prefer to see most rounds debated and is the place where most rounds are won and lost in front of me. I want to see real-world impacts with realistic link chains. If your opponent is telling me that everything is going to lead to nuclear war or global extinction you just need to prove that this is not a realistic scenario and you will have won the impact for that advantage or DA. Politics is also perfectly allowable. The only politics DAs that I do not like are those saying that you spend political capital therefore these bad things happen. Those DAs tend to run roughshod over affirmative fiat so I don’t like seeing them and I don’t give them much if any in round weight.

CPs – Absolutely love to see a good CP. My only real requirements here are that the CP should be non-topical and competitive. CPs using other actors or consulting other countries are great and I am perfectly willing to entertain them so long as they meet the above requirements.

K – Kritiks are something that you need to be very selective with in front of me. You need to make sure that the alternative is a real-world policy alternative and not something that would never apply in reality. I absolutely agree that there may be questions of morality that are addressed by a kritik but without a policy alternative it isn’t going to go very far in front of me.

Last thoughts – First, be specific when you are telling me where your arguments are going. Don’t just tell me “on the Labor DA flow” and start spewing cards. Give me the specific points you are attacking and don’t expect me to do your work for you. I am more forgiving at the novice level because those debaters are still learning but I still expect you to tell me where you want your arguments to go. Second, if you feel an argument is going to be important in the round I had better hear more than 10 seconds about it in the constructives. Arguments that are presented as blips in the constructives and then expanded upon for 3-5 minutes in the rebuttal come across as something that you didn’t really care about that much until you realized that there may be a viable strategic option. If you want to go for something at the end of the round make sure that you have spent sufficient time on the argument in the constructives.

I am a PF judge for Fort Atkinson, although I have judged policy in the past. I judged policy from a traditional policy-maker position and tend to prefer cases that are on-topic and had a course of action that I could take. While we are not looking for a plan from Public Forum debaters, arguing the topic directly plays right into my preferences, so it will be tough for PF debaters to go wrong with me.

Speed should not be an issue for public forum debaters, however I know that some students compete in several formats. Having judged policy in the past, I am comfortable with a novice-to-varsity level of speed, however, if I think that you are speaking too quickly for a public forum setting, I will say "clear" up to 3 times. If you speed up again, I will merely start to take off speaker points. If you are speaking so quickly that I cannot flow the debate (which should never happen in PF; this isn't policy!), that will simply be to the detriment of your case. I will not judge what I cannot flow.

I judge primarily base on the arguments/analytics that are presented in the round. I feel that speaker points are best suited to reward debaters for style. In other words, while arguments, facts, and logical deductions are the bread and butter of any debate, if you make it look good or convince me that you know your case backward and forward, that will be reflected in speaker points.

If you are arguing from a moral high ground, please be sure to emphasize that I should be considering moral obligations before considering other aspects (such as utilitarianism) and why. For example, I need something in your arguments telling me why I should value human lives above, say, dollars and cents, but from there on, this can be referred back to as a moral imperative without having to re-argue the original moral argument. Just be sure to include something in your summary or final focus that mentions that I should vote based on moral obligation above all other considerations.

When you are wrapping up the debate, please indicate clearly which arguments you think are the most important for me to consider and why. If there are flaws in the opposing argument, or if you want to toss some analytics, I am fine with this. Analytics are the application of logic to draw a conclusion based on the evidence at hand and they indicate to me that you've been seriously considering the side of the argument that you are presenting.

On my ballot, I try to indicate areas of improvement for everyone along with what was done well. If I indicate a mispronunciation, it is only to improve your debate for the next round, not to embarrass you. While a large vocabulary is desirable, nobody can claim to be perfectly familiar with every single word. English is far too large of a language and it can be terribly inconsistent.

You should also know that I am an Air Force Brat. I grew up on an Air Force Base, near a naval station, that housed Navy personnel and Marines. I am familiar with military equipment of various kinds, how they function, and the role they play in current and past military strategies. Tactical maneuvering for military and political advantage are not unknown to me and I have a good grasp of recent conflicts and their history. Please don't quote conflicts and dates unless you are certain because I will not find it convincing if it's incorrect.

I judge based on clarity and strong reasoning. If it doesn't make sense or debaters can't explain it, then I will have a harder time believing what they say. I also want to see that debaters understand their own arguments, and aren't running something they were just handed.

Content is also big for me. I want to see debaters talk about education and real-world impacts. However, reasoning and clarity are more important, so I would rather see a person who fully understands an odd argument rather than a person who does a real-world impact they don't comprehend.

I work for MPS - Rufus King High School

I did 4 years of policy debates in high school, what is now called "traditional debate".

I've judged mostly novice debate for a few years.

Speaking

How fast can students speak during speeches? Medium Speed

If a student is speaking too fast or unclear, will you give any cues to them? Usually I will say slow/slow down or clear

List stylistic items you like debaters to do.

1. Debaters should start with a roadmap and include signposts during their speech.

2. Debaters should do a line by line refuting the opponents arguments

3. Debaters should include an impact calc in the final speeches

List stylistic items you do not like debaters to do.

1. I do not like rudeness

2. I do not like partners to talk to the speaker during their partners speech excessively

Arguments

List types of arguments you prefer to listen to/evaluate.

1. Disadvantages are important to the negative attack

2. I’m open to inherency and solvency attacks

3. I’m open to counter plans

List types of arguments that you prefer not to listen to.

1. I do not understand kritiks very well, it will probably be hard to get me to vote on this for you. I come from the more traditional debate mindset.

2. I rarely vote neg on topicality, it would need to be the full shell with voters that make sense. And the neg must give this sufficient time in the round but I will be swayed aff by them being reasonably topical.

Other Notes

I love clash, I love line by line. I really want debaters to take apart each other’s arguments. This is best accomplished by listening to each other.

I want the last speeches to include an impact analysis that shows why their position leads to be a better world.