Current affiliations: Leland || he series || Rounds on CJR topic: 44
Yes, put me on email chains: firstname.lastname@example.org
1. Do what you do best... Although I've never had a big name or the most experience in debate, I've engaged a lot of the literature bases it has to offer, from reading exclusively Policy Affs at the start of high school to performing Asian identity Affs towards the end of high school/in college and giving lectures on pomo stuff as a coach. At a bare minimum, I will be able to follow a grand majority of debates.
2. ...but write my ballot for me. Judge intervention is annoying for everyone; the best debaters in my opinion are those that identify the nexus questions of the debate early on and use where they are ahead to tell me how to resolve those points in their favor. That involves smart comparative work, persuasive overviews, incorporation of warrants, etc. that I can use as direct quotes for a RFD in your favor.
3. Speed is fine, but in the words of Jarrod Atchison, spreading is the number of ideas, not words, communicated per minute. I will say clear twice per speech and then stop flowing if it remains unclear.
4. On CX: I'll flow portions I think are important. Tag-team is fine, but monopolization is not. Asking if your opponent did/did not read a piece of evidence is definitionally a cross-examination question and must be done during CX or prep.
Policy Affs - Great. I love a detailed case debate and will reward teams that engage in one.
T vs. Policy Affs - Love it, but if it's obvious you read your generic T shell solely as an effort to sap time, it loses most of its persuasive value for me. Specific and well explained violations and standards are key; why should I vote for you on T when I don't understand why your model of debate is better? Be creative with your interpretations!
I find myself about 60-40 partial to competing interpretations.
CPs - The block/2NR should hammer home a convincing internal/external net benefit(s) and, preferably, specific Solvency deficits to the Aff that the CP resolves. The threshold for me voting for a CP decreases based on how well it competes and the presence of detailed reasoning as to why I should prefer it to the plan and perms. Generally, however, I think that CPs that could result in the implementation of the plan (i.e. consult, delay, process) are probably abusive, which makes me more conducive to theory arguments here. These biases are far from absolute, but you should be aware of them.
Two smaller things: 1) I think Aff teams let Neg teams get away with too much with sufficiency framing and should aggressively defend alternatives like competing advocacies, and 2) I tend not to judge kick, you need to win condo and flag otherwise if needed.
DAs - I dig go-ham OVs with smart, in-depth sequencing/turns case arguments that decisively win that the DA outweighs the case (and vice versa). The link story and the internal link chain are the most important for me; the more specific your link evidence, the better. Zero risk is possible.
I'd love if more Aff teams were bold enough to link/impact turn DAs, it certainly makes for more interesting debates than four minute UQ walls.
The K - Explain the link and alt story well. The least meaningful debates here are when one side goes on and on about the intricacies of their lit base without ever meaningfully engaging the Aff; you're debating, not writing a dissertation. I appreciate 2NCs that demonstrate in-depth understanding of their literature base AND do a good job connecting it directly to the form/content of the Aff; to this end, I'm a big fan of references to/direct quotes from Affirmative speeches and CX to contextualize the link debate. You can ask me before the round/email me on my familiarity with specific literature bases.
Be honest about how long your overview is (don't be afraid to ask for another sheet for it), and if your overview is any longer than three minutes, I'd highly recommend checking if you could move some of the analytical work to the line-by-line.
K Affs - Ambivalence is a good word to describe my thoughts here. I think that debate is a game with pedagogical benefits and epistemological consequences, and that Affirmatives should be in the direction of the resolution/provide a reasonable window for Negative engagement. What that means or where the bright-lines are, I'm not entirely sure. Subjects of the resolution and even debate itself may have insidious underpinnings, but I need to understand what voting for the advocacy/performance (if applicable) does about the state of those issues. As a judge, I find myself asking more questions than before about what my ballot actually does; providing the answers through ROB analysis and explanations of the Aff's theory will serve you well.
FW vs. K Affs - Despite what I said above might imply, I love FW debates, especially those that come down to comparing models of education. I think I'm a better judge for skills and SSD-based impacts than for procedural ones like fairness, partly because these procedural impacts are almost always described as vague "intrinsic goods" that I have a more difficult time evaluating than tangible shifts in what debaters get out of the activity. Collapse to a couple of your best external net benefits in the 2NR and do comparative impact work between these and the 1AR, e.g. by impacting out advocacy skills as giving debaters the tools to create movements in the direction of the Aff. Don't get too defensive no matter how hard they push you.
Not all rounds have to have a TVA. Know when you should have one and when you should not.
Theory - In general, I have a relatively high threshold for rejecting the team; this doesn't mean I won't vote on theory, it just means that I want you to do the work. There should be be ample analysis on how they justify an unnecessarily abusive model of debate with examples/impacted out standards.
I don't have any specific biases either way on the condo debate. I'd strongly prefer if interpretations were not obviously self-serving (e.g. "we get five condo" because you read five conditional off this particular round); while I understand this is at times an inevitability, it is also not the best way to make a first impression for your shell.
Specific arguments I dislike - New Affs bad, non-falsifiable arguments that cite something from outside the round, Idso, arguments based on personal insults/xenophobia (racism, sexism, anti-LGBTQIA+ language, etc.)
Lay - If judging at a California league tournament/a lay tournament of equivalence, I'll do my best to judge debates from a parent judge perspective unless both teams agree to a circuit-style debate. Offense-defense is probably easier for Affirmatives, and stock issues are probably easier for Negatives.
If you get me on a panel and some of the other judges are parents/inexperienced, PLEASE don’t go full speed with a super complicated "circuit" strategy. It’s important that all the judges are able to engage in the debate and render decisions for themselves based on the arguments presented; if they miss those arguments because you’re going 700 WPM or because they don’t know who this Deleuze person is, you are deliberately excluding them from the debate, which is disrespectful no matter how inexperienced they may be. I’ll still be able to make decisions based off your impact framing and explanations, so cater to the judges who may not understand rather than me.
Last thing: please be respectful of one another. I hate having to watch debates where CX devolves into pettiness and debaters are just being toxic. I will reward good humor and general maturity. Have fun :)
If your name is Hannah Lee and you are reading this, you are amazing, have a nice day