Last Updated Feb. 2022

Bio & Experience: I did 4 years of high school policy for Kearney High School in Nebraska and 4 years of college debate split between UMKC and UNL. I previously ran the debate website Debate Central. I have coached high school debate and judged many rounds locally and nationally over the past 15ish years. Most recently I was the assistant coach at Lincoln East. My current full-time job is outside debate, doing research and data analysis. I have coached and taught every event in a classroom setting, but my background is in policy. As a policy debater, I ran arguments of every style; I went for the K slightly more often than policy arguments. I ran plenty of nontopical affs, but also went for T on the neg with some frequency. I don’t see myself as belonging to any particular stylistic “camp.”

As a person, I am a 30-domething white woman who does not fall neatly into any political party. I care about social justice and fair opportunities for all. I think it extremely important to challenge one's assumptions, both in debate and in life. I have degrees in poli sci/public policy and read quite a bit of philosophy/theory as a hobby, and I don't love it when debaters make arguments about those topics that are wildly incorrect. I include this information because social location is never wholly divorceable from the intellectual process of judging a debate. However, I make every attempt to render every decision based only on the content of the given debate.

I see debate ideally as an open testing ground for ideas and its accompanying community committed to growth and discovery. I want us to approach each other with kindness and good faith.

THE ONLY PART OF THIS YOU ACTUALLY NEED TO READ

Above anything else, I believe debate is a place for the debaters to come together and discuss their ideas. I strive to keep my personal evaluation of those ideas out of my decision calculus. I also believe that debate shapes us all in important ways, socially and intellectually, and debaters should take that into account. Those questions are as relevant to policy/trad teams as they are to K teams, and are particularly crucial to “clash of the civilizations” debates. I am open to hearing any kind of argumentation and enjoy it all pretty much equally.

I appreciate debates that involve some creativity and original ideas the most. This might take any form (unusual disad, personal scholarship, tricky procedural arguments, original narratives, unexpected PIC, etc). I see these as much more valuable than yet another round of going through the motions of saying the exact same thing. I won’t vote against you for just going for ASPEC/generic spending disad/the same K you’ve been reading for 3 years/whatever, but I do think we could all likely do something better with that time. I want to see debaters engaged with the ideas and information they are presenting.

No matter what your argumentation style is, I expect clearly articulated claims & warrants, detailed impact comparison, and rebuttals that tell me what a ballot in your favor should look like. What does it mean for me to cast my ballot for you, and why should I? If you are always directly answering those questions with your rebuttals, you should be fine.

I am always open to hearing argumentation about anything*, including debate norms. I will attempt to judge from any paradigm the round I watch asks me to adopt, even where it conflicts with what I’ve written here.

Here are some assumptions I default to unless you tell me otherwise:

• The ballot goes to the team who most successfully convinced me they deserve it in this round (why you “deserve it” can take on a lot of forms, and is up to you to develop)
• I will be flowing in a “typical” policy debate format, and assigning individual arguments to flows based on the sign-posting and organization the debaters create for me. Absent any organizational work from debaters, I might flow in one long column of “mess.”
• Offense trumps defense (unless the defense is 100%- this is rare, but possible).
• Silence is consent. New answers to drops shouldn’t be evaluated, but creative cross-applications are fair game.
• Argumentation is more important than evidence. I will only consider flaws in evidence if they are pointed out in the debate, or if there is no clash on the question other than tag-line extensions.
• No new arguments in the rebuttals. Impact comparison should begin before your last speech.
• Theory can be a voting issue, but I am unlikely to vote on it without robust argumentation about why the issue deserves the ballot. “Reject the argument, not the team” is persuasive absent an excellent counter.
• Impacts that actually happen are of greater concern than imaginary impacts. Ideas created in the debate space exist in real life, they affect us as humans, and we are responsible for them. Roleplaying as a policymaker does not make one immune from this. (This might be translated as: no matter what your approach to debate is, you better win your top-level framing stuff)

*Exceptions: I will not add speeches to the round or assign double wins or automatic block 30s, because I don’t want to mess with the tab room. These are the only considerations I’m committed to. Anything else is fair game.

OTHER THOUGHTS ABOUT SPECIFIC DEBATE STUFF (in case you're super curious about my debate thoughts for some reason).

Please note these are written in a policy debate context, but the ideas expressed apply to my thoughts in other formats too:

Speed: Talk as fast as you want. I’ll listen to Ks of speed, but they better be more than “reject speed because I don’t like it.” If I say “clear,” you need to speak more clearly (this is not the same as slower). Lower threshold for anti-speed args if the debater making them has a disability or other accessibility concern and clearly expresses it before the round starts.

Evidence: Covered above. I will only call for cards if (1) I’m verifying a claim about the evidence made in a speech (2) I’m looking for a way to make a decision on an important issue that was inadequately covered by both sides. The first will please me, the second will not. Making comparisons between your evidence and your opponents’ evidence is extremely important and highly encouraged. Tell me why I should prefer yours. “Our evidence is from a peer-reviewed study while theirs is from some guy with a blog”= good. “this evidence is on fire, read it after the round!”= pointless.

Framework: No matter what your style is, you need to win your framework debate. By this I mean, you need to win why I should evaluate the debate from a perspective that allows you to win on the substance. Again, what does it mean for me to cast my ballot for you?

Framework is the place where we discuss what it takes to win the debate. This involves lots of complex questions that are not just “am I allowed to run Ks?” or “does the aff have to be topical?” (although of course those particular questions are involved). Your framework should define the roles for both sides, and cover how we determine which side wins. For 2 different examples: “the aff must defend the implementation of a topical policy action, the neg must defend the status quo or a competitive policy option. The winner is the team whose advocacy is found to be comparatively advantageous” or “the winner should be decided by determining which performance or advocacy best advances diversity in debate.”

Framework decides how I will evaluate the rest of the issues in the round. It shapes how all of the clash on the substance is weighed. A good framework debate walks me through what arguments on other flows I should evaluate and why. It is a frame for the round. It does not begin from “my opponent should not be allowed to make X argument,” but rather is an attempt to explain how a judge might consider the various impacts potentially manifested by diverse ideas. (for example, a policy framework might instruct me to view a political counterplan as a legitimate counter-advocacy to the ideas presented by a nontopical aff, and discuss how competition is affected). I am not impressed by framework debates whose only implication is “vote for us because they are cheaters.” I’m unlikely to be stoked about framework debates from either side that end by asking me to wholesale disregard everything your opponent has said.

Policy teams win by winning that the discussion of policy considerations is valuable, and that their impacts are of great importance due to timeframe, magnitude, and probability. The policy is thus worthy of a judge’s intellectual endorsement as a “good idea.” K teams win by winning that discussion of ontology/epistemology/methodology/etc is valuable, that these considerations implicate or undermine policy-level conclusions, and that the K alternative somehow mitigates some identified problem. The kritik is therefore deserving of endorsement via the ballot. Trying to win the whole debate by convincing me that one of these “planes” of concern is totally unworthy of my attention is going to be difficult for you unless your opponent does a particularly bad job.

None of this means I won’t vote on a framework arg designed to exclude (such as “aff must defend usfg fiat” against a K aff with no plan text). I will if you win, just as anything else. I’m also willing to vote for the kritik of this type of framework. Full disclosure: I think frameworks designed to exclude are pedagogically questionable and (probably more importantly to you:) easy to lose. However, I’m conversely fairly unlikely to vote on the K of framework against a framework that wasn’t designed to wholesale exclude the aff from the debate (again, such as a framework that insists on considering disads or counterplans as responsive to a particular nonpolicy methodology of the aff). This obviously depends on the individual round. If your strategy for a round depends on one of these arguments (“you cheat and that’s a voter” or “trying to exclude us is a voter”) you are strongly advised to consider this paragraph and ask me about it if it strikes you as unclear.

Please talk to me if you have any questions or concerns or need clarification on anything I have said. Framework debates can be complex stuff, and are increasingly crucial to everything else that happens in many of the rounds I've been watching over the past few years. The most important point I am trying to convey is that good framework debates should set up a clear path of calculus for a judge comparing diverse impacts. They should not, IMO, be an appeal to completely ignore all of your opponents’ arguments.

Topicality: I will vote on topicality. I need to see clean, substantial, deep comparison of standards and voters. I do not necessarily require in-round abuse, unless there are arguments about why I should. In a round between two policy teams, I really enjoy a good T debate and will default to competing interpretations. I am very, very unlikely to vote on a straight RVI. When I’m wearing my “policymaker hat” I tend to assume the aff does need to be topical and the neg is entitled to test the aff’s topicality.

When I like T, it’s because I have a real personal curiosity and love for words and linguistic precision. These debates explain topicality as something like a judicial/legalistic investigation into the exact significance of a particular word choice. When I don’t like T, it’s because the neg’s argument is basically “we wanted to run this one disad but it doesn’t link to you :(” or “here is a dumb, super-limiting definition of this word I found lol vote neg.”

In a “clash of civilizations” round, a neg would obviously have to win plenty of top-level “why should I care about whether the aff is topical?” questions AND THEN also win the T line-by-line. I humbly suggest that there might be better ways to approach this debate than just going for USFG T again, but hey-- you do you. See the framework section for probably-relevant thoughts.

I’m equally likely to vote for a well-articulated K of T as for a topicality argument. If you like going for Ks of T, keep in mind that I consider them to be vulnerable to “there is a topical version of the aff” (important questions for both sides here: is there? and how would it differ from the nontopical version?) and “reject the argument, not the team/kicking is good enough.” These arguments are not trump cards, but are issues you shouldn’t brush off in front of me.

Procedurals: I really hate them and will be irritated if you make me waste several hours of my Saturday watching you read your ASPEC blocks. I’ve yet to hear a compelling reason why existential inherency doesn’t provide enough neg ground. OSPEC is the dumbest argument ever. No one gains anything from these debates. I don’t outright refuse to vote for these things, I will if you win them, and I understand that sometimes you need filler or will take advantage of an opponent’s time allocation mistake. But making these a major part of your strategy indicates a lack of creativity and intellectual ambition that will annoy me and reflect in your speaker points. I will also give a lot of weight to basically anything your opponent says to these, so you’re banking on major drops.

On the other hand, creative procedurals that are specific to a particular aff can be fun.

Theory: I’ll vote on it, but you will need to display significant in-round abuse and do more than just repeat your blocks in every speech. Making the debate all about theory when it could be about something else probably won’t help your speaks any with me, but I’ll vote there if I have to. Again, “reject the argument, not the team” is often persuasive. I lean neg in most theory debates, most of the time.

Disads/CPs/policy arguments: Yes.

Tricky, specific PICs are among my favorite strategies for dealing with many types of affirmatives. Doing something cool here will excite me.

Kritiks/”performance”/personal advocacies/nontopical affs: Yes.

I am pretty familiar with most of this lit, but that doesn’t absolve you from debating as though I wasn’t. Your link story should be tailored to the debate and include as many illustrations as possible. Don’t just repeat lingo; apply the theory you’re discussing to this specific round.

If you are obviously really unfamiliar with the ideas you’re advancing, it won’t stop me from voting for you if you’re winning, but I will be annoyed and your speaker points will take a hit.

You also need to make sure you are spending some time developing the alternative. What does it do? In other words, in a hypothetical perfect enactment of the alt, what would that look like? What would be different? How does the alt achieve solvency? Etc. (I tend to find "asking us to explain what the alternative does is a new link!" very tiresome, but it can be good if explained correctly.)

To reiterate something I hinted at above: I’m about as permissive as they come in terms of what I think is worth discussing in debate. I will not be a fan, though, if your K argument isn’t an actual argument (e.g. tell me WHAT you are defending, HOW it differs from your opponents’ ideas, and WHY I should want to cast my ballot for it).

Ins/Outs, tag team, where you speak from, paperless ev exchanges off the clock, and any other minor details about the setup of the round: I don’t care what you do.

I expect students to keep their own time. I will also run a clock, but I shouldn’t be depended on for timekeeping purposes. I don’t give time signals (unless you don’t want me to flow).

In the event of technical difficulties, I will allow a reasonable (decided based on how tight the tournament is running, etc- no more than 5 minutes) amount of “free” time to attempt to recover lost documents/reboot computers/whatever. No one is allowed to prep during this time. If I see you prepping, I will run your prep clock. If you have a complete paperless meltdown and lose your entire flow, that is a problem for you and your partner to deal with and will not result in any extra time for prepping. Please take whatever steps you need to to avoid this outcome.

Cheating: YOUR SUCCESS SHOULDN’T COME FROM ANYTHING BESIDES YOUR BRAINPOWER. If I notice you are stealing prep, clipping cards, or doing anything else shady, I will give you one verbal warning, deduct speaker points commensurate with the severity of the offense (at least 1, possibly as much as drop you to zero), and speak to your coach about it after the round. Multiple minor offenses will result in drastic speaker point deductions. If I notice you clipping more than once (doesn’t have to be the same round or even the same tournament) I will issue you a loss and speak to the tab room about it. This may happen even if your opponents don't notice or point out the cheating. In all cases, I may also consider in-round argumentation about the nature of your punishment from both sides, when appropriate, although the offending team is unlikely to win “nothing should happen to us.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------

An incomplete list of things I like: tricky, specific strategies from all stylistic backgrounds. Debaters who are personally engaged with their argumentation and put their own spin on existing scholarship. Meta-level discussions of epistemology, meaning production, and what it means to participate in and win debates. Concrete examples and illustrations that bring your ideas to life. Strategic concessions & using your opponents’ arguments against them. Clean, organized debating. Rebuttals that “write my RFD for me.” Following the path of least resistance to the win. Arguments that begin “even if our opponents win X, we still win the debate because of Y.” Approaching your opponents with respect, kindness, good faith, and generosity of spirit. Well-defined clash. Funny jokes, a sense of style, and a little bit of sass. Asking questions and continuing the conversation post-round. Using debate as a place to explore ideas with an open heart and mind.

An incomplete list of things I dislike: Reliance on generic backfiles from the Clinton administration. Recitation of blocks without tailoring them to the specifics of the round. Obvious unfamiliarity with your own evidence and/or basic world events (understanding of what is happening around you and what has happened in the past is equally important for the articulation of K and policy arguments). Excessively long overviews; anything labeled an “underview.” Thinking you’re funny for reading horrible arguments (you can’t even begin to fathom how many people have gone for wipeout since the last time it was funny; you are wasting everyone’s time). Arguments that encourage anyone to quit debate. “Kicking” framework and acting as if it doesn’t impact every other flow. Sloppy debating that lacks direct refutation, sign-posting, and/or overall direction. Repitition of jargon or buzzwords without meaningful discussion of their significance. Affs who go for perms or no links when they should be going for internal link turns or impact turns. Approaching your opponents with disrespect, bad will, or cavalierly impugning their motives (saying “their arguments justify fascism” is very different from saying “they are fascists.” Understand the severity of personal accusations).

Speaker Points: I’m adding this section due to ongoing chaos in the college community surrounding the issue. Speaker points are always subjective, but I’m offering a guide to what my mental rubric looks like:

30= Flawless in terms of coverage, technique, and strategy. Masterful grasp of the topics being discussed, eloquent, creative argumentation, deep and well-developed. Funny, pleasant, engaging, clear, and respectful. One of the best speeches I’ve ever heard in this division. Extremely rare.

29-29.9= Excellent mastery of technical skills, coverage, and understanding of the topics of the debate. Displayed good strategic vision. Speaker is respectful, engaging, and eloquent and making is smart, compelling arguments. Any errors are minor. Overall, a tremendously impressive speaker.

28-28.9= Coverage, strategy, and technical skills were good. Speaker displays good engagement with the topics of the debate, makes clear arguments, and creates in-depth clash. Some creativity. No major errors. Not rude or offensive. Speaker was good, but did not stand out as great in this round.

27-27.9= Major errors. Coverage, strategy, or technical skills may have caused serious problems for this speaker. Clash might be limited to tagline extensions or repetition of claims without warrants. Speech might display a major lack of familiarity with the debater’s own evidence. Debater’s demeanor may have been noticeably and unjustifiably rude or disrespectful (without being an obvious ethical violation). Do a rebuttal redo from this round with your coach.

26-26.9- Debater failed to meet minimum standards for this division (filling speech time [except where unnecessary], advancing some coherent arguments). Speaker is encouraged to keep trying!

25- Given to a speaker who shows up to a round, but fails to meaningfully participate in the debate at all (such as by forfeiting or waiving their speech). This is not a hard rule, and the circumstances for a forfeit will be considered.

0-24- Given only as punishment for some ethical violation, such as hate speech, flagrant time-stealing, or first-offense minor card clipping. This might arise due to opponent’s argumentation or my own prerogative. Extreme circumstances only.

*Please always feel free to chat with me about anything written here, or any questions you have. I like talking about debate, and I don’t live under the illusion that I’m never wrong. I welcome any and all conversations.*

Personal Info

I debated at Lincoln HS, in Lincoln, NE. I mostly debated policy, specialized in the kritikal side of things, and ran everything from topical affirmatives, to anti-topical affirmatives. On the negative, I ran everything from Nietzsche to Give the Land back to spending DA's and consult CP's. After graduating HS I joined the Army. Now I am stationed in JBLM, Washington with 1st Group.

I swear like an sailor, expect it, and let me know if it is offensive to you, I will attempt to refrain as much as possible.

General stuff:

· I should be fine with whatever kritik you run. I might not have the best knowledge of it so make sure to explain it well, but my background knowledge should be passable.

· BE CLEAR. I haven't judged in about a year.

· I don't wanna watch two ships passing in the night (I'm looking at you, Novice Policy). Debates with more clash usually end with more speaker points for both sides.

Policy:

First, some basic thoughts:

· I think that topicality is an important issue that at least warrants discussion in some instances; however it may be difficult to win against an actively non-topical team because all levels of the argument need to be won for T to be won.

· I’ll have a hard time voting for traditional condo bad theory against one conditional advocacy, but multiple contradictory worlds are probably not okay. This is assuming the advocacy is not for some sort of chaotic alternative.

· Counterplans are generally fine, but I am partial to abuse arguments against Plan inclusive Counterplans, or PICs, because they generally seem to be a thinly veiled way for the neg to frame the aff out of the round. If there is sufficient literature base for and against the PIC, I will probably give it more leeway than say the ‘the’ PIC.

More specifically:

· Kritiks must flow correctly and clearly.

· I love a good case argument, and if you fail to attack the case, and only run a kritik, counterplan, or disad, it is going to be hard for me to vote neg. I believe that, minimum, there should be at least one developed case argument brought into the 2NR. This does come with exceptions, of course. Kritiks that attack the foundations of debate, or form into a case negative with exterior offense, I will listen to, but I promise you, it is easier to just make a case argument.

· Counter-K’s are fine but please make it clear about whether or not it is a part of the affirmative case and you are treating it as a negative specific advantage, or whether it is free floating.

· You can’t bullshit a bullshtitter. Don’t even try.

Lincoln-Douglas

I debated predominantly policy in high school, but i do have a positive record overall in LD. I have read some of the traditional ethical philosophers, or at the very least know the gist of what they say (mostly Rawls, Kant, and Hobbes), along with a lot of the newer, more postmodern stuff. The one thing I don't have a lot of knowledge of is the weird framework positions. I should be able to follow what you argue, and I'll try my utmost to evaluate the way the debaters tell me too. I like to look to the value-criterion debate for impact analysis a lot.

If you give me some bullshit definition from Merriam-Webster or fucking Dictionary.com it is very easy to convince me that definition is, in fact, complete bullshit. There are plenty of good sources to get legal and philosophical definitions from. I'd much rather hear a definition from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy or the Black's Law Dictionary.

As a policy debater, I am used to the long rebuttals and constructive speeches to develop arguments, such as K's. This means I have a high standard for how well you develop your arguments. I would rather hear two well developed arguments than twenty arguments that are brought up and then never extended.

On voting:

I’ve found that I tend to like impact calculus when it comes to deciding a debate. What I mean by that is when you explain exactly how you win at the end of the round and why your impacts are important, I am more liable to vote for that argument than your opponent. Basically, I tend to lean towards well-structured dispassionate rebuttal speeches as opposed to passionate disorganized rebuttals because I find it easier to justify my ballots. I want flow.

That should be all the technical stuff that people need to know. Just have fun in round and try to be nice to each other. I think that the debaters should always be the ones to define the rounds, so just have fun and do what you want to do and I'll try to go along with it. I'd definitely appreciate something new, because I think that creative arguments are what makes this activity fun, and what makes it stand out. As such, I'll probably be giving you more speaks if your arguments come across as innovative and polished. Grounding your arguments in reality (even if it's a very non-standard view of reality) effectively is a reliable way to seem more polished.