Who the heck is Candice Ahl?

       I was on the Fremont Senior High School debate team from 2000-2004 under the instruction of Fred Robertson. During my time there I competed in LD, Public forum, and Student Congress. Aarron Schurevich from Millard North was my Public forum debate partner. I qualified for Nationals and TOC.

        Since high school, I have been judging the last five years for LD, Student Congress, and Public forum. I am entering my first year as an assistant coach for Omaha North high school.

How to win my ballot - There is nothing that will automatically win or lose you the round. I will not dictate what kind of arguments you must run. With that being said, I believe that debate needs to be topical and have clear, well warranted clash. Unless a debater is running a blatantly evil case I am likely to vote for any argument that is well explained.  I will judge how you tell me to. Like almost every other judge, I have biases, but if you do the better debating, those biases will become irrelevant. Give me crystallization and voters at the end of the NR and 2AR. Make it obvious why I should be voting for you.

I see debate as a community and academic space where we should be able to have valuable discussions.

Engage and compare – lots of teams just do “extend extend extend” without engaging the other team’s arguments. The first step is always important, but the second step needs to be there. Tell me why your arguments are good/important, and then why the other team’s arguments are not. Tell me reasons to prefer your evidence/arguments. Tell me what comes first. Tell me how and why and why not to evaluate arguments. I can and will follow the flow. For extensions to be granted a debater cannot simply say “Extend my card which says x.” I need a claim, warrant and impact.

Cross-Examination - I don't flow cross-x or use it to determine my rfd. If you get a concession or something relevant and important comes from cross-x then it should be referenced in your rebuttal. You can say "remember judge they said ___ in cross-x." There are two roles of cross-x as I see it 1.) Clear up anything you found unclear or don't understand, and 2) Try to get your opponent to concede to something.  The latter is much more difficult and if your opponent isn't biting, please, please, please let it go and move on. Cross-X is not the time for you to try and prove your point or arguments true. Save that for your rebuttals. "Don't you think that" questions are unfair, biased, and tell me nothing.  Please be polite and give the other team a chance to speak--doing so won't cost you the round/speaks. 

Theory debate - I am not a huge fan of theory debate. However, I will vote off of theory if obvious abuse is present and well explained. But I greatly prefer resolutional debates. Running theory for the sake of running theory is not advantageous. I need to know you understand what you are saying, the applications, and implications. If it is a confusion tactic, please don't do it.

Speed- I can keep up with moderate speed but I will probably not get down a majority of what your saying if you go too quickly. Some debaters simply go too quickly for me to flow and most debaters just don’t spread very clearly. I will say “clear” or “slow.” Even with speed, I want variance in your tone, inflection, or speed so that you can indicate to me what is the MOST IMPORTANT parts of your case and evidence so that you make sure I don't miss it.   

Other Random Stuff-
1. Author qualifications are debattable. You can tell me why they are important and can discredit the validity of what your opponent is arguing. You do not need to accept everything your opponent is running or citing as truth.
2. Don’t sacrifice clarity for speed.
3. I award speaker points in a range of 26-30, but only include .5 as another variance to this. If I can't tell you what I think you should have done better then you will earn a 30. Cross-X is a place will I determine a speaker worth a 29 or a 30.                                                                                                                                          4. There’s a difference between being aggressive and being rude – no need to call people or arguments stupid or dumb. Don’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, or a jerk.

I like to vote on sound arguments. Good speaking skills are cool too.

I generally judge debate rounds based upon debaters ability to utilize reason and evidence to construct a fleshed out argument which is then pulled through the round, while also effectively attacking their opponents arguments and defending the case they have laid out. I do not place value on large numbers of cards but rather quality of cards and how effectively they are utilized throughout the round. Should other topics come into play, such as framework debate, I'm completely okay with it so long as speeches stay organized and clear. I'm okay with speed, but you should still be enunciating and I should be able to understand what you are saying. I will not bring information I am aware of into the decision of the round, and will only vote based off of what has been presented to me. However, I will call for evidence and take that into account if need be.

My history with debate is 4 years experience at Millard West (3 years varsity), with another 2 years after coaching before not being around as often recently.

I debated in high school and college (graduated 1968) and have been coaching since. I have lived through the transition from Debate to Policy Debate and the birth and development of both Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum

Lincoln-Douglas Debate: Lincoln-Douglas (value debate) was created because many people did not like the direction that Policy Debate had gone. As such, LD debate centers around a conflict between two values. Debaters argue that one of the values in the round is of higher importance than the other. This value priority determines the affirmation or negation of the resolution. Thus, the debater argues Justice(ex) is the higher value, and since Justice is the higher value the resolution is affirmed. A plan can be used to demonstrate how the resolution could be applied in a practical sense. Since LD is designed not to have a plan, if the opponent raises that argument, I will vote on that. Otherwise, the plan can be debated in terms of workability, practicality, etc. Regardless of the strategies used – in order to win the round, the debater must win the value conflict.

Public Forum was introduced to correct the flaws that had emerged in LD (excessive speed, strategies and tactics rather than sound argument, etc) and is designed to be judged by a non-debate person. Thus – a good Public Forum Round is clear and persuasive. Arguments and evidence relates directly back to the topic. There are no plans in PF – I will vote on that. A test that I use in judging PF is whether or not a “regular person” would understand the arguments and be able to decide the outcome of the round.

Since debate – in all of its forms – is an educational, communication event the following hold true:

Delivery is the means by which the debater presents the arguments and evidence for decision.

The presentation should be as clear and understandable as possible – rate and articulation are important elements because the judge must hear and understand the case in order to vote on it.

IT IS THE DEBATER’S OBLIGATION TO ADAPT TO THE JUDGE – NOT VICE VERSA.

Debaters should present their material and conduct themselves in a professional manner. They should avoid attitudes (reflected in both tone and facial expression) that are unprofessional. Word choice should be appropriate to an educational event (cussing, swearing, vocabulary choice etc) have NO PLACE in an educational activity.

I am and have been the coach at LHS for the last 9 years. I was also the 2021 NSDA's National Coach of the Year.

General Notes-
* I am in tab much more often than I'm behind a round at this point. As such, I may be rusty on some more specific lingo/ trends(read as: don't just label an argument a RVI and expect me to accept it on face, explain why it's important)
* I have a disability that has varying levels of impact depending on the day; when it's flaring up, I might have trouble flowing spreading, or processing information at that speed. If you don't want to exclude me from the round, it'd be helpful to check in with me before the round starts. I'm also super happy to talk about it if you have more specific questions :)

*I will NOT vote on: racism, homophobia, transphobia, sexism, anything other bigotry. Please just be cool people.

*If your case has any material that could be psychologically damaging or harmful, trigger warnings are a necessity. Graphic material includes, but is not limited to descriptions of: violence based on gender identity, sexuality, or race; police brutality; suicide; sexual assault; domestic abuse. Because debate should be safe and accessible to all debaters, TW's should be articulated in order to include everyone. Refusing to provide TW's for graphic cases creates an exclusive and threatening atmosphere and will effect speaker points, but not the decision.

PF-
Arguments- I'm very open to whatever style of argument you want to make in round, so long as you do it well. Don't just dump cards, actually offer in round analysis and engage with your opponent's arguments. If something is important to the round, I expect you to spend time on it. Regardless of the style, I need to see some sort of weighing mechanism in round- that could come from an observation or impact calc (or whatever else) so long as I have some sort of idea what I should be valuing. Absent of that, I'll default to generic util weighing. I prefer cut cards over paraphrasing, but will listen to either.
Speed- I prefer a moderate, not ludicrous, pace. If you want to go absurdly fast, that's fine, but understand I'll miss some details. I think it's really important for speed to be justified by content- so, if you're talking fast enough that you have to reiterate the same underview three times because you're out of content, I'd rather you slow down. At any speed, I really value clarity. It's also good to know that some days I physically won't be able to flow super quickly, so it wouldn't hurt to double check with me about speed before round.
Round Structure- First and foremost, I expect the second rebuttal to address both sides of the flow. So, make sure, in front of me, you're allocating your time in a way such that you're able to address everything important, as dropped arguments are essentially conceded.
I don't expect line by line argumentation in summary and final focus. Instead, the round should be narrowed down to the main points. This is where I expect a lot of weighing and analysis, not just 50 author names back to back.

LD-
Standards/ Framework- I don't have strong feelings any one way about V/Cr vs Single Standard and/or RoB etc. I initially learned LD through a pretty traditional framing, so I tend to track that way myself, but, I'm open to whatever you want to do if you explain in. If you're running some philosophy that's out there or uncommon, it would benefit you to explain it clearly.
Theory- I'm down, but it actually needs to be theory (read as: "Speed is unfair/ exclusionary" isn't an argument I'll evaluate; Interp, violation standard, voter framing is)
Ks- See above, I'll happily hear out a k with structure that actually functions within a round. YOU HAVE TO OFFER A LINK or there's no way for me to evaluate the K
A Priori/ Prima facie/ probably other things- justify why it matters and I'll hear it out.
**As a general interpretation, I view theory/ks/ a priori arguments etc as arguments. They aren't some sort of magical trap card that automatically win you the round. They are arguments that need to be interacted with and extended like anything else. Reading an ableism K in the NC and then leaving it there isn't going to win me over. Your opponent answering an identity K with arguments doesn't make them inherently bad, they're interacting with an argument you put out
Solvency- I don't inherently think solvency is important in LD. This doesn't mean that I won't hear out solvency arguments, but you need to justify why I should care about solvency for it to be a voting issue for me. "The aff doesn't offer any solvency" on its own isn't enough for me to vote on.


CX-
**I really don't judge policy all that often. If I'm behind your round, things were likely pretty desperate from a tab or judge hire perspective. Despite that, I will do my best to adjudicate the round- you'll probably just need to slow down a bit on taglines and important analysis for me.

As a judge, my job is to evaluate how the debaters did, not to tell them that an argument is dumb. I consider it the responsibility of the other debater to do that. If a debater makes a bad argument, is it up to the opposing debater to point it out and explain why - I will vote for bad arguments if they are not responded to.

I am highly oriented towards a clear connection from evidence to the impacts. Debaters have less to prove to me if someone makes ridiculous claims unsupported by evidence - in fact I would be happy to vote down an argument if it has no evidence if the opponent simply points that out.

I also look closely towards value/framework arguments. I’m looking to answer the question of what should we do to answer the resolution, and I consider the value/framework a crucial part of answering that question.

I also don't particularly like speed because I think that it takes away from a person's ability to argue and think on the spot during rebuttals when giving a speech - you can't speed without something being written beforehand. However, I will not vote anyone down because of it.

I don't find arguments based in the semantics of a resolution to be very convincing. I won't vote a debater down because of it, but the arguer will have the burden of proof. They must explain why the argument matters before I will vote for it. In general this goes for all arguments, but it remains especially true for these.

Pronouns: any

I debated Lincoln Douglas at Southwest and Parliamentary at American University, and have experience judging LD, PF, and Parli. Professionally, I’ve worked most recently as a chemist and environmental health scientist.

GENERAL NOTES

I debated and now coach/judge debate because I truly enjoy the activity and think it provides excellent educational opportunities for students with a variety of interests and backgrounds. This isn’t my space but yours; please run whatever arguments that interest you and make you comfortable. The following notes are based on my aptitudes as a judge, but I don’t ‘dislike’ any forms of argumentation that are well warranted, clearly explained, and presented effectively.

Note on Trigger Warnings

A trigger warning is a verbal warning prior to the presentation of material that could be psychologically damaging (or triggering) to individuals who have experienced trauma. This warning allows individuals who may potentially be triggered to prepare themselves so they can actively participate in the debate. I believe that debate should be a safe and understanding place for all participants and believe that trigger warnings must be included by any debater who chooses to include graphic material of any kind, including but not limited to detailed descriptions of: violence based on gender, sexuality, or race; police brutality; suicide; sexual assault; domestic abuse. Refusing to provide TWs for graphic cases creates an exclusive and threatening atmosphere and will effect speaker points (see scale below).

SPEED
I’m fine with speed as long as it’s not mutually exclusive with clarity. I will not yell “clear” but an observant debater will find that I’ve stopped flowing and am looking up at them with a face of terror and/or confusion if I’m unable to understand their spread. If these non-verbal cues are ignored, the debater is responsible for any arguments I was unable to flow, which will not be weighed in subsequent speeches.

STANDARDS
I was never a big standards debater, so if your standards can be easily collapsed to a central weighing mechanism, please do so. If not, standards debate must be centered on the unique qualities of the standards themselves rather than a debater’s ability to meet the established standard (‘I achieve best’). Those are case arguments. Apply them to the case. I will choose the standard that is best warranted and explained as an appropriate mechanism to evaluate the impacts of the round.

THEORY/TOPICALITY
If you are running theory as a time suck, and it is obvious to everybody in the room (it probably is), I’m going to be annoyed at you and I probably won’t vote on it. However, I will vote theory/topicality if argued well for legitimate reasons. These are arguments I’m much less familiar with, so if you choose to make them it would be wise to take your time explaining the violations and implications clearly.

KRITIKS/PERFORMANCE
If you’re interested in a critical argument, 100% go for it. Make sure all the components are clearly present and explained. A clear role of the ballot is definitely important. Kritiks and performance debates are great because they usually allow for a greater diversity of arguments, but I also expect some level of authenticity with your advocacy. Do not spread a narrative. Do not drop a narrative in the 1AR. If you are using another person’s lived experience in a competitive atmosphere it is expected that you are respectful of that experience.

SPEAKER POINTS

The scale should help you interpret how I evaluate speaks:

30

Perfect

Debater displays clear understanding of the topic and in-round arguments, case is presented not merely effectively but exceptionally. Way to go, super star!

29

Excellent

Debater effectively presents a well-developed case, fully utilizing time in speeches and cross examination. Speeches are well-organized and any issues in clarity are minor.

28

Good

Debater presents a case with no obvious contradictions and arguments are generally well-developed. Debater fully utilizes their time and speeches are well-organized, though there may be some issues with clarity.

27

Average

Debater presents a case with no obvious contradictions and arguments are generally developed sufficiently. Debater doesn’t fully utilize their allocated time. Speeches are generally signposted and easy to follow, though there may be some issues with clarity and organization.

26

Below Average

Debater presents a case that contains obvious contradictions or poorly developed arguments, disorganization is distracting, and speech style/speed is difficult to understand. Cross examination is used for clarification questions only.

25

Poor

Debater presents a case that contains obvious contradictions and poorly developed arguments, and is frequently difficult to understand due to speaking style/speed. Speeches are severely under time.

24 and below

Offensive

Debater is blatantly rude/disrespectful in or after round, uses graphic depictions of violence without utilizing TWs. Being a poor orator is not alone enough to receive a score below a 25.

NOTE: Points will be deducted, regardless of in-round performance, for debaters who argue with a decision post-round or pack up their belongings before the round and oral critique are concluded. This is disrespectful to your judge, your opponent, and the team you represent.

Feel free to ask any specific questions regarding my paradigm before the round!