Graduated from La Salle College Preparatory in 2021

Attending Hawai'i Pacific University studying History and competing casually in British Parliamentary debate here.

Went to TOC in 2020 in Public Forum and Nationals in Big Schools once and Public Forum twice.

For Debate:

I will vote on the cleanest issue on the flow in the round so try not to waste your time on things that have gotten too muddled throughout the round and seek the clearest route to the ballot. I ran K's and theory in high school in Public Forum so if you know how to introduce that into the round correctly I am totally in support. Make sure in any debate round that your arguments also reflect your audience.The easiest thing to vote off is weighing in a round. If you do not weigh your arguments I have no idea how to evaluate or vote for them. I am fine with speed.

For Speech:

I competed casually in Extemporaneous Speech in high school and have not done speech since then. I will judge to the best of my ability noting NSDA standards.

Please ask questions if needed before or after rounds.

I have been judging speech and debate tournaments since 2014. I do not like spreading or technical jargon, but I understand the basics of argumentation. I take notes but I don't flow in a traditional sense. Passion for the topic and respect for the opponents are something I look for. The way the competitors carry themselves in the debate is important to me.

I am most experienced in judging Public Forum debate and am familiar with a claim-warrant-impact structure. I usually make my decisions based on which team better meets the framework of the debate. Off-time road maps are always appreciated, as well as the use of lay-friendly rhetoric.

Background

I've dabbled in Lincoln-Douglas, Public Forum, Congressional, Impromptu, Extemporaneous, Big Questions, and Dramatic/Humorous Interpretation — and have judged a fair amount of Original Oratory, Policy Debate, Poetry, Prose, Parliament, and Duo Interpretation rounds.

General Points

- In speech events, more attention is paid to fluidity and engaging presentation; in debate, this is not necessary. I don't mind if you speak very fast, as long as your case is shared with your partner or you pay attention to speaking clearly. The case and its arguments are ultimately more important than presentation, however.

- Point out the weaknesses in your opponent's case, though do not be needlessly impolite. On that note, refrain from demonstrating misogyny, homophobia, and racism.

- Make sure to address your opponent's arguments well, and to defend yours well. Too often, a compelling argument is left uncontested or a compelling argument is not reaffirmed.

Additional Points

- Theory, Kritiks, Counter-plans, Perms, Plans, and DAs are fine to implement/mention, just make sure your logic is sound. If the conclusions/links do not make sense or are needlessly complicated, I won't be particularly partial to them. Critical arguments are fine, too.

- Make sure to provide a justification for impact framing in Parliamentary Debate; magnitude is not as important as the probable and structural impacts of actions.

- Referencing cards in Lincoln Douglas and Public Forum makes for a better structured round, and gives tenability to your arguments. I'd recommend doing so.

what's up friends i'm jackie. i did pf for 2 years @ la salle & graduated in 2019.

** update for cal: if u wanna skip grand and just take 30 sec of prep thats fine w me i think grand is kinda pointless

if u have a question about something not covered here, please don't hesitate to ask me before the round!

- flip and preflow before the round PLEASE

- defense is sticky in 1st summary unless it was frontlined in 2nd rebuttal

- all offense in final focus needs to be in summary. i'm okay with new weighing in final as long as that weighing pertains to offense already extended in summary.

- frontlining in 2nd rebuttal is not required, but i think it's good strat to at least respond to turns.

- COLLAPSE PLEASE! don't go for everything. issue select. if u don't collapse u will see me looking v sad, even if ur ~nUKinG tHe fLoW~

- signpost. it'll give me a headache if u don't and tbh i might stop trying to follow u if u keep bouncing all over the place w/o telling me where to go. be methodical & tell me exactly where to write things.

- i really don't like having to call for cards?? in my mind, voting off of evidence is lowkey intervention on my end. so like. i'll only call for a card if an indict is read, implicated, and extended all the way thru ff. i'll only vote someone down off of ev if it's seriously miscut. otherwise, i'll always prefer a well-warranted analytic over blippy carded responses.

- if u read something racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/ableist OR you read a sensitive arg without a trigger warning, i will absolutely tank ur speaks and will have a low threshold for arguments on why i should drop you. (if ur reading something questionable and u don't know if it could be triggering or not, always ALWAYS ask before reading it.)

- this should be a given but pls meta weigh. if ur winning on probability and ur opponents are winning on magnitude, i won't know how to evaluate the round unless u tell me

- i'm def open to evaluating progressive args if warranted/explained/linked to the res thoroughly.

- if u have a question about my decision/want additional feedback, i'm happy to give more detailed comments outside the round. u can also email me (jhenley3@stanford.edu).

I debated at La Salle College Prep in Public Forum on the National Circuit for all of my high school career, reaching outrounds at tournaments such as Berkeley and Yale and qualling to the TOC and Nationals twice. I am currently studying International Relations at Durham University in the UK.

I would consider myself a flow judge(tech>truth) I have a soft spot for theory(not frivolous) and K's however you still need to win the round to win my ballot. I am perfectly ok with spreading just let me know if you plan on it before the round and send a speech doc. Here are some things you can do to win my ballot.

General Debate:

Constructives can be anything, I don't ever take my own opinions of policy into a debate round, just do not be offensive

Framework must be responded to in the following speech(ex. if someone reads structural violence framing in 1st constructive, propose an Alt framework or concede in 2nd constructive)I will evaluate and abide by the conceded/won framework very strictly

Rebuttals can do whatever, I evaluate offensive overviews coming from 2nd rebuttal, unless theory is read telling me why I shouldn't. I expect 2nd rebuttal to handle offense. If you do not frontline in 2nd rebuttal, its highly likely I wont vote for you.

If you do not weigh in summary, I will default to whoever brought up weighing in summary and if neither team does I default to util. Please do comparative weighing and meta-weighing if necessary (i.e. why scope is more important than timeframe). Absent weighing, I default to to the most terminal impact in the round aka lives.

Extend the entirety of an argument. Have the whole story in there, don't assume parts of the argument even if they drop it. If they drop it, you can be quicker on the extensions that are predicated on concessions, but still do them (re-tell the warrants).

Big Picture in Final is preferred, unless something has happened in the round that prevents you. If there is an offensive overview you can respond, aside from that nothing new

Theory and K Debate:

K's should have links to the consequences of the plan or a very very good alternative. I am most likely to vote for the kritik if the K explains why the link turns the aff and takes out solvency at some level.

Links of omission are not compelling and the alternative needs some solvency mechanism other than reject the affirmative, whether that be a policy option or to burn down the state. If I think that you are relying on buzzwords to explain the position, my understanding of your argument won't be very good.

I am most familiar with Fem, Securitization, and Afropessimism however, I am read on most general K literature(militarization, orientalism, etc.) so read whatever you want in front of me

I will evaluate any Theory, however, I strongly dislike Topicality theory against Identity based argumentation. Please read a ROB in the theory and if you are against the theory RVI!!

Speaks:

If you want good speaks, be respectful, clear and follow my paradigm

mention harry potter or star wars, i will boost you .5

IF YOU ARE SEXIST, RACIST, HOMOPHOBIC, TRANSPHOBIC, CLASSIST, I WILL DROP YOU AND CONTACT YOUR COACH. PLEASE MAKE DEBATE A SAFE PLACE.

Treat me as a flay judge, I'll be flowing but I'll also be noting your presentation of arguments, confidence, and assertiveness. 

No harmful or exclusionary language/actions are permitted

email/questions: lilybnelson@gmail.com

competed in PF and Parliamentary.

Pronouns: she/her

Now, time to kick some AFF and break a NEG

General

-be respectful (PEOPLE ARE NOT A MEANS TO YOUR ENDS)

-have sides ready if a coin toss

-don’t talk over one another in cx/be hostile (different from assertive)

-I disclose unless told otherwise

Specifics

-Extend into Summary/FF, this is the offense I will vote off of

-weigh + impact calc is crucial for getting my ballot

-collapse

-signpost

-I won't flow cx, if a concession or something important takes place, bring it up in speech so I can flow it

-Cite the authors/sources/dates

-I don’t love paraphrasing but you won't lose my ballot if you do... Just don't be abusive.

-I won't call for cards unless you tell me

If EVER I am to judge you in policy: go to tab and request a new judge (You will see me in tab as well crying and flailing G2's across the room because I don’t want this either). I respect it, but not my cup of tea.

PF:

tech>truth, but that doesn't mean you can circumvent basic logic with one sketchy piece of evidence

DO: signpost, weigh, respond to turns/significant defense in 2nd rebuttal, extensions (!), crystallize the round in summary (because everything in final focus should be in summary), warrant everything

DON'T: be rude, bring up new points in final focus (unless your opponent brings up something entirely new in second summary), bring up something new in 2nd summary, deeply miscut or misrepresent evidence (I won't call for ev though unless someone explicitly tells me to, or I feel like I need it to resolve the round)

* I don't flow cross, but I'll still be listening. If something was important in cross, make sure to repeat it in a speech so it does end up on my flow, and use that time to try to get concessions out of your opponents.

** This is my 3rd year as a varsity debater, BUT I am not competing on this topic so make sure you are still explaining arguments thoroughly. That being said, if the round boils down to two nuclear war/winter/extinction scenarios, the best way to win my ballot is to explicitly tell me why your scenario is a) more probable/better warranted b) going to happen first or c) you link in/pre-req

LD/Policy:

I've judged LD a few times (but never competed), and I feel pretty comfortable with framework debate. A lot of the PF "DOs" apply to LD and Policy as well as far as what I want to see in speeches. However, I am not super familiar with Theory and Kritiks; you can read them, but make sure you are being very clear and helping me follow along. Also, I can't flow spreading so either don't do it or send me a speech doc.

policy: clear plan text (funding, timeframe, etc). Aff must have solvency to win. Neg counterplans must be competitive.

Parli:

Not super familiar with expectations in Parli, but avoid just completely making up evidence for the sake of your arguments. Also be respectful with POIs (that's what they're called right?): be concise and if you're speaking don't always dismiss them. Like other events, entirely new arguments at the very end of the round won't be evaluated, and make sure you signpost, defend, and extend your arguments.

Congress:

just do you and try to ask thoughtful questions

Additional Things:

Feel free to ask me any questions before round if I missed something, the paradigm was unclear, or you don't understand one of the terms I used! At the end of the day, I want you all to have fun and get something out of the round.

^Because of this DO NOT make the round unsafe for anyone in it (that means avoid the -isms and the -phobias) and also please read trigger warnings (if you are worried something might need a trigger warning just ask and I can help you properly make it)!

I have been a Public Forum Debater for three years and consider myself well experienced. You can think of me as a flow judge but still, explain your arguments clearly and more importantly, make it clear what your impacts are. I should know your two or three main impacts by the end of the round. I don't mind speed, I can keep up, just make sure you are speaking clearly and articulating. If you are talking too fast to the point where I can't understand you, I will merely stop writing so speak clearly. Lastly, keep your round clean and respectful. The thing I hate more than not being clear is being rude so respect your opponents.

—Updated for Glenbrooks 2022—

Background - current assistant PF coach at Blake, former LD coach at Brentwood (CA). Most familiar w/ progressive, policy-esque arguments, style, and norms, but won’t dock you for wanting a more traditional PF round.

Non-negotiables - be kind to those you are debating and to me (this looks a lot of ways: respectful cross, being nice to novices, not outspreading a local team at a circuit tournament, not stealing prep, etc.) and treat the round and arguments read with respect. Debate may be a game, but the implications of that game manifest in the real world.

• I am indifferent to having an email chain, and will call for ev as needed to make my decision.
• If we are going to have an email chain, THE TEAM SPEAKING FIRST should set it up before the round, and all docs should be sent immediately prior to the start of each speech.
• if we are going to do ev sharing on an email, put me on the chain: ktotz001@gmail.com

My internal speaks scale:

• Below 25 - something offensive or very very bad happened (please do not make me do this!)
• 25-27.5 - didn’t use all time strategically (varsity only), distracted from important parts of the debate, didn’t add anything new or relevant
• 27.5-29 - v good, some strategic comments, very few presentational issues, decent structuring
• 29-30 - wouldn’t be shocked to see you in outrounds, very few strategic notes, amazing structure, gives me distinct weighing and routes to the ballot.

Mostly, I feel that a debate is a debate is a debate and will evaluate any args presented to me on the flow. The rest are varying degrees of preferences I’ve developed, most are negotiable.

Speed - completely fine w/ most top speeds in PF, will clear for clarity and slow for speed TWICE before it impacts speaks.

• I do ask that you DON’T completely spread out your opponents and that you make speech docs available if going significantly faster than your opponents.

Summary split - I STRONGLY prefer that anything in final is included in summary. I give a little more lenience in PF than in other events on pulling from rebuttal, but ABSOLUTELY no brand new arguments in final focuses please!

Case turns - yes good! The more specific/contextualized to the opp’s case the better!

• I very strongly believe that advocating for inexcusable things (oppression of any form, extinction, dehumanization, etc.) is grounds to completely tank speaks (and possibly auto-loss). You shouldn’t advocate for bad things just bc you think you are a good enough debater to defend them.
• There’s a gray area of turns that I consider permissible, but as a test of competition. For example, climate change good is permissible as a way to make an opp going all in on climate change impacts sweat, but I would prefer very much to not vote exclusively on cc good bc I don’t believe it’s a valid claim supported by the bulk of the literature. While I typically vote tech over truth, voting for arguments I know aren’t true (but aren’t explicitly morally abhorrent) will always leave a bad taste in my mouth.

T/Theory - I have voted on theory in PF in the past and am likely to in the future. I need distinct paradigm issues/voters and a super compelling violation story to vote solely on theory.

*** I have a higher threshold for voting on t/theory than most PF judges - I think this is because I tend to prefer reasonability to competing interpretations sans in-round argumentation for competing interps and a very material way that one team has made this round irreparably unfair/uneducational/inaccessible.***

• norms I think are good - disclosure (prefer open source, but all kinds are good), ev ethics consistent w/ the NSDA event rules (means cut cards for paraphrased cases in PF), nearly anything related to accessibility and representation in debate
• gray-area norms - tw/cw (very good norm and should be provided before speech time with a way to opt out (especially for graphic descriptions of violence), but there is a difference between being genuinely triggered and unable to debate specific topics and just being uncomfortable. It's not my job to discern what is 'genuinely' triggering to you specifically, but it is your job as a debater to be respectful to your opponents at all times); IVIs/RVIs (probably needed to check friv theory, but will only vote on them very contextually)
• norms I think are bad - paraphrasing!! (especially without complete citations), running theory on a violation that doesn’t substantively impact the round, weaponization of theory to exclude teams/discussions from debate

K’s - good for debate and some of the best rounds I’ve had the honor to see in the past. Very hard to do well in LD, exceptionally hard to do well in PF due to time constraints, unfortunately. But, if you want to have a K debate, I am happy to judge it!!

• A prerequisite to advocating for any one critical theory of power is to understand and internalize that theory of power to the best of your ability - this means please don’t try to argue a K haphazardly just for laughs - doing so is a particularly gross form of privilege.
• most key part of the k is either the theory of power discussion or the ballot key discussion - both need to be very well developed throughout the debate.
• in all events but PF, the solvency of the alt is key. In PF, bc of the lack of plans, the framing/ballot key discourse replaces, but functions similarly to, the solvency of the alt.
• Most familiar with - various ontological theories (pessimistic, optimistic, nihilistic, etc.), most iterations of cap and neolib
• Somewhat familiar with - securitization, settler-colonialism, and IR K’s
• Least familiar with - higher-level, post-modern theories (looking specifically at Lacan here)