Anna Correa (she/her)

Hi there!

I debated LD for 3 years and PF for 1 year at Valley High School (2014-2018) and coached PF and some LD at Iowa City West last year (2018-2019).

In general:

- I'll vote for most arguments so long as it is supported and impacted appropriately. That being said, respect and human decency are important, so keep that in mind.

- Impacts are important. Your args and warrants mean nothing if you don't tell us why it matters or what it means for the way I'm supposed to vote.

- Debate is about debating, not listening to the sound of your own voice (that's for us coaches and judges to do lol). Regardless of your debate style or what kinds of args you're debating against, be sure to actually engage with your opponents. Don't talk over the substance of the round. Dig into the clash. We love to see it.

- Speak as quickly or slowly as you'd like. Whatever speed you choose, make sure you're speaking clearly. If asked to slow down, please do.

- I'm all about giving feedback and helping newer improve in their debating skill, so I'll give comments at the end of every round.

- If you have additional questions about my paradigm or after a round, please let me know!

LD

- I was mostly a phil framework debater, and I'm most familiar with that style/literature but will listen to anything. Whatever style you choose, tell me how to evaluate the round, whether a standard or ROB or otherwise. Make sure you explain all things clearly though because I won't use my own knowledge to fill in the gaps in your arguments.

- Go at whatever speed you want and can clearly speak. Slow down for important taglines or author names. I'll say clear or slow several times if necessary.

- Theory/T: slow down on interp language. tell me everything I need to know. Don't leave me to default on things like drop the arg vs debater, etc.

- All args you want to be evaluated should be brought up in each speech. Even if it's conceded, at least mention it in subsequent speeches, so I flow it through. I won't flow args that are new in the 2.

PF

- Persuasion is more important in PF than LD, but I'm still a flow-based judge. This means that args need to be pulled through the entirety of the round to be considered in my final decision.

- Non-empirical or "qualitative" args are totally fine, but you still need warrants of some sort and a reason it outweighs more easily quantified data.

- Crystallization and condensing in later speeches can be a smart strategy. Be intentional with the args you choose to spend time on as speeches get shorter.

- Weigh your args against your opponents' and impact your args to tell me why they matter. Tell me why your evidence and impacts mean you should win the round.

- I base PF speaks more on speaking style (but still strategy and overall approach) than I do for LD.

Policy

- I never debated policy but have judged some policy rounds at a state/regional level.

- Please include me on email chains, but keep in mind that this isn't a cure-all for my lack of policy experience.

- Don't assume I know anything about the topic or lit (because I probably don't).

- Be especially clear with T/theory interps, complex Ks, and CPs.

- I'll evaluate almost anything that is warranted, impacted, explained, and argued well.

- At the end of each speech, spend a few seconds summarizing your speech and telling me why you're winning.

- Clearly delineate offs as I should evaluate them, especially when a round includes a lot of layers.

Pre-round paradigm

Hello! I am good with pretty much any argument as long as it is developed as an actual argument. I much much much prefer clash to avoiding argumentation. Something isnt an argument just because you say it is, it has to actually be an argument. and dont read tricks please :)))))

Prefs paradigm

Please put me on the email - Harvanko11@gmail.com - but I probably wont be reading ev during the debate I enjoy all types of debates as long as they are done well, I will try my best to be tab and adapt to whatever style of debate you are used to rather than having y'all poorly adapting to what i am used to. I am fine with most things as long as you take your opponent seriously. go at like 70% of top speed. I obviously do have opinions on things as everyone does so the rest of this will be trying to be transparent about what those are. None of this is set in stone and I will try my best to rid myself of any ideological bias during the round.

For quick prefs i hate you if u read tricks and will happily evaluate everything else

POLICY AFFS

I enjoy all of them from the most stock aff on a topic to an in-depth process aff as long as they are debated well and I am given a clear story of the advantages/what the aff does to solve them.

K AFFS

Go for it, I would much prefer if the aff had *some* relationship to the topic either being "in the direction" or telling me why I shouldn't like the topic (and more importantly why that means I should vote aff) and I do not really like an aff that is just something that can be entirely recycled every topic. With the framework debate I probably err towards a well thought out counter interp than just straight impact turning everything but both can be viable and winning strategies.

PHIL POSITIONS

I have at least some experience in most philosophies. I have a hard time believing that all the philosophies that y'all claim don't care about consequences actually don't care about them (kant is an obvious exception). With a policy against a phil debate, I would prefer having some spin as to why your offense is relevant under their framework than just going all in on their framework being wrong or yours being normatively true but either can be a winning strategy.

COUNTERPLANS

I really enjoy a good counterplan so long as I know both how it competes and what the net benefit is (competition from net benefits is competition enough but there can be more). I really really enjoy process counterplan debates as long as I understand its distinction from the aff.

Counterplan theory is pretty much the only theory that I am wholeheartedly for. I come from LD originally and have moved into policy so my thoughts on condo aren't really clear yet, for LD I can be easily convinced of either side.

DISADVANTAGES

I don't really have any strong opinions about disads. I would like a lot of impact and turns case analysis if the disad is the only thing in the 2nr. I don't think I would be comfortable voting on a disad if the aff has a comparable impact without some level of solvency push by the negative.

THE CRITICISM

I think they are usually pretty good arguments but I feel as though they are often times assumed to come prior for no particular reason and I wont just arbitrarily do that for you. I need a substantial amount of explanation for me to feel comfortable voting on denser theories like afropessimism, baudrillard, lacan etc.

THEORY

I can get behind most theory debates as long is there is actual abuse. I know I know, reasonability is arbitrary but I think there are affs that clearly are not abusive. I think that fairness is a good internal link but not an impact in and of itself (and I imagine that that will be hard, but not impossible, to convince me of). I actually find myself hating judging theory debates nowadays because they are usually way to fast for me, so with that, I would prefer if you slowed down quite a bit if you're going to be making hella quick analytic args (this is generally true but especially true for theory debates). I really don't like disclosure in most cases unless the aff has been broken but isnt disclosed online and isnt disclosed in person before the round.

TOPICALITY

Go for it, I am predisposed to think that t isn't an RVI but can potentially be swayed otherwise. The more contextualized definitions are to the topic the more I like them. I think t can be incredibly persuasive against k affs as well (not as a framework position but actually going for t)

TRICKS

dont read them please :)

ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS

- CX is binding but I probably wont write anything down unless you explicitly direct me to in the moment.

- Speaks start at around a 28.5 and I look to go up or down from there based on strategy, efficiency (not time efficiency but if you are too repetitive on an argument), and clarity.

- Please ask me questions before the round if you are unsure of anything!!!!!

- I welcome you all to post round me, we are all in debate for a reason and i love to argue

Name: Brad Noethe

Email: brad_noethe@hotmail.com (Yes, I want to be on the email chain)
I'll just cover few of the things that most debaters question within paradigms.

Speed:

I'm fine with speed, just signpost and give good impacts and analysis with extensions.Extensions need a claim, a warrant, and an impact. If you just say "extend Foucault, so people die," I will not evaluate that as an extension. If your opponent doesn't properly extend an argument, demonstrating your opponent didn't during your rebuttal is a compelling argument.

Theory:

Despite the fact that many don't run theory well, I do enjoy hearing it when it is run well. I would like to hear theory when it is genuine, but if the shell is won, I will vote for it, even if the abuse was a bit questionable. Debaters should be able to beat bad shells. I also believe that theory is bi-directional. However, if the shell itself is ignored, generic turns don't matter.

I'm not a big fan of abusive strategies run with the intention of drawing theory in order to use multiple rvi's and theory turns. It is definitely not the best way, or even a good way, to get my ballot. If your opponent is using abusive arguments, running theory would probably be a good strategy. I think most of the theory turns and rvi's that are used when abusive suck and I am much, much more likely to buy arguments against them. I'm not a theory hack, but I think theory is a legitimate tool to check abuse. Rvi's need to impact to some interpretation or notion of debate or the purpose thereof. I.e. if fairness is not a voter, then rvi's on why theory is unfair don't matter. Also, weigh the rvi against the initial violation or explain how the rvi functions in relation to the shell or the round as a whole.

I will not vote for case disclosure theory or any theory argument that references disclosure or any substance of the wiki. If you are for or against case disclosure, cool, but I don't want to see debate rounds be altered by something that amounts to a philosophical difference in a debate trend, particularly when such theory shells are not substantially answered, nor do they create truly productive in round discourse. Additionally, debaters should not be harmed based upon decisions of their coaches on the philosophy of meta debate issues. If that pisses you off or makes you want to strike me, please do so. Thanks.

I will vote for T, but give me a voter. If you don't give me a voter, it only gives me a reason to reject the argument. I typically think that rvi's on T are bogus, but I will vote for them if won.

LARPing:

Plans: I like hearing plans if they are well developed and give a good impact scenario. I think plans, however, do need to have either some form of standard or some framework justifying why I evaluate arguments in any particular fashion, as impacts only matter inasmuch as there is some notion established of what is good or ought be done.

Counterplans: I enjoy counterplans as long as they have competitiveness. It seems obvious, but counterplans need to have mutual exclusivity. I'm not a huge fan of pics, and I don't think I've ever heard a debate that was made better by the existence of a PIC, but I'll vote on them.

Pre standards/A priori:

I don't mind apriori, but tell me why I should evaluate the argument before the standards. That being said, the more of those type of arguments that you run, the more sympathetic I become to theory.

Critical arguments/Kritiks

I like hearing critical arguments if you've developed them and understand the argument. If you don't understand or can't validate and support your reasoning, your speaks will suffer, and it will be difficult for me to vote for you. I'm most familiar with Nietzsche and Foucault, so you can go quickly if running them. For other authors I should be fine, but if I give you a funny look, you may want to slow down. I don't read anywhere near as much philosophy as I used to, but I still love critical positions.

If you have a weird or new argument you want to try with me, by all means do try it. You should do whatever you believe will be most strategic for you to win the round. If an argument is dumb, it should be easy to beat. I think that K's need an alternative, unless there is framework to justify the lack of one. Also, please specify the status of the K/CP/DA in the speech doc or immediately disclose it in CX. Not a paradigm issue per se, but I wish more debaters would be unconditional/dispo with their statuses, but it shouldn't affect my decision.

I want to mention that I am VERY sympathetic to perf-con arguments, so please keep that in mind.

Speaks:

I give pretty high speaks, generally. I give speaks based on how impressed I was with your performance in round. I don't care about attire or the way that you deliver your speech. If you want to stay seated, that's cool.

It is much easier for me to know where to vote if you provide me with some weighing. It is not paramount by any means to achieve my ballot, but it is preferred and makes decision making much easier.

I really don't have a preference as to where I vote. I'll vote wherever, just tell me why I should vote there and how you are winning that argument. That being said, I default to the standards if you don't tell me to vote anywhere else. I don't presume a particular way unless told to do so.

Random Stuff:

I think if your opponent calls for your case or cards, you should flash/email it to them. If you don't, I won't be too happy about it, and your speaks will probably suffer. There is no good reason to hide your case. Also, if you ask clarification questions of the case while you have it, I believe your opponent has a right to look at the case to explain something to you. Wait for your opponent to set down the page they are reading before you go to grab it if they are reading it, and make sure you don't make a scene or anything when getting it. Also, I expect debaters to answer questions during prep time, and I'm fine with flex prep, as long as the neg had the opportunity to use it in the first cross ex period. I don't care how you dress, as long as you are moderately clothed.

If you have any other questions, ask me before the round and I'll be happy to answer them. Good luck and have fun. This is your game. Do with it what you will.

I'll vote on anything so long as it is justified and I can follow the logic (I do not take a sense on if the logic is truly logical, rather if there is a chain I can follow), absent anything grossly offensive (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc). Please be nice to your opponent. I give high speaks and take the time to make a decision that I can fully justify the logic of.

Especially over zoom, try to slow things down. It's been 5+ years since I competed in VLD, so not as good at keeping up with spread as I was. Dense phil Ks I'll have trouble understanding. I'll vote on them (as I'm open to any type of argument), but it will be a dangerous strat. I love theory and think the curcuit needs more of it. I also think that the general structure of theory/Ks are beneficial to judges understanding, but I make no requirement that anything be structured in a standard shell.

PF (everyone, but PF especially) - I will be highly skeptical of any cards and will probably call for them if the warrant is paraphrased. I highly recommend cutting the cards with direct quotes instead.

Include me on email chains.

FJG NOV/DEC 2020 TOPIC - if as the negative you argue "the fact that the unemployed do not have skills" or "they won't want to work hard" is an impact and do not elaborate on that point i will be fairly upset. think of a better way to phrase your argument.

yes, i want to be on the email chain: izzieosorio3@gmail.com

bio: i use they/them pronouns. i'm three years out. i debated 2014-2018 in sioux falls, sd. i have experience in both trad and nat circ ld and policy. i was a 4x natl qualifier, state champion my junior year, state semi-finalist my senior year, top 50 my senior year at NSDAs and top 8 at NCFLs.

i mainly ran analytic phil (kant), critical literature (anzaldua, butler), and pomo (braidotti, haraway). i'll probably be familiar w what you throw at me (ask just in case), but as long as you have a warrant, we'll be good.

prefs:

1 kritikal/performance/non-topical (high theory 2/3)

1 phil

2 larp

4 theory/t/tricks (but feel free to challenge this)

short version: tw's are necessary, pronouns are encouraged. 6/10 on speed. i'll vote on most any argument/position as long as there is a warrant. if it gets too techy, be explicit on the flow or else i'll draw the conclusions for you. pref me if you run deeply critical/philosophical positions. i'm hesitant towards theory and if it's your a-strat you need slow down - i have more thoughts later down. send me the speech doc. be nice.

long version: as an overview, my job is to adjudicate the clash between the ideas that two debaters/teams - i'm not here to tell you what to run, i'm here to listen to the arguments you present.

that being said, run your strat and run it well. i want to hear arguments that have warrants, are impacted out in the round and interactive w your opponents args. preferably these args should be impacted to an established weighing mechanism . if neither debater does this at all, i will try to discern a decision based on the arguments in round and you probably will not be happy with how i vote.

i like critical literature, i like western phil. i like high theory, but slow down so i can catch everything. i did policy in hs and can appreciate a good aff plan/solid cp+disad strat. p much i'll listen to whatever you have to bring to the debate, so run what your most familiar/confident/strong with.

with t and theory, i didn't debate it ~incredibly often~, so i am not the most qualified to judge and have a higher threshold for voting on it. however, i have less preferences/beliefs when it comes to t/theory and will listen to whatever you have as long as it's thought-out and developed. i like strategy, but don't be absurd/unreasonable (a good t shell against a plan aff instead of a generic "aff can't run plans" interp). regardless, you're gonna need to slow down for me to catch all your args. i'll vote on spikes, but if it's your a-strat, you prolly won't get high speaks (don't do 6 mins of "they dropped 'x' spike, vote them down") - give me at least one other route to vote.

speed: if i have a speech doc, we'll be good. if i don't, just be CLEAR and LOUD and i can flow. either way, if you're like the fastest spreader on earth, bring it down to like a 6. i'll yell clear if i'm completely lost on the flow.

speaks: don't be offensive/run offensive args (e.g. racism good), you'll get an L-20

high speaks are gonna be given to well thought-out positions that are utilized in substantive/nuanced ways. debaters will have interacted w the opponents arguments intuitively and made thoughtful/strategic decisions.

just be nice to your opponent, debate is not that deep to be mean about it. if it's clear your opponent has no idea what your position is and you intentionally steamroll them i will tank your speaks.

if you have any questions, email me or ask before round. glhf :)

Doing an email chain? I'd love to be on it: amwelter12@ole.augie.edu

Short version

Policy/LD background. Former debater and current coach. I time prep, but you should too. Please don't rely on me to give you 30-sec intervals.

PF - Big fan of disclosure theory and paraphrasing theory, but I'm iffy on most other theory. Don't tell me why your impact is big, tell me why it's BIGGER than your opponents'. I don't need you to win every contention (kicking out is under-rated). I don't need you to win more contentions than your opponent. I just need you to tell me why the arguments you DO win are more important than the other arguments in the round. Impacts are crucial for that. I'm a sucker for "even-if" weighing. Please don't make me judge a round where both teams close for everything, some contentions have links, some have impacts, and none have both. If you call for a card, prep starts as soon as the card is in front of you. Your speaks will take a hit if you steal prep. Your speaks will take a bigger hit if you make blatantly new args in FF (which I won't weigh). 2nd rebuttal should respond to 1st rebuttal. Uniqueness is probably important.

LD - Connect your contentions to your framework (or your opponents') or tell me why you don't have to. Winning framework alone is almost never enough to win the round. It is in your best interest to give me more than one way to vote for you (e.g. "I win and uphold my framework so vote for me there, but even if you don't buy that then here's why I win under my opponent's framework"). I am willing to vote you down for paraphrasing evidence instead of reading/quoting cards if your opponent calls you on it and gives me any explanation for why it's a bad thing to do.

Long version

I prefer topical debates on substance--that's where I've found that I'm least likely to get lost. I also prefer judging debaters who are doing what they love and do best, which doesn't need to be substance or topical. If 10 is top-speed, then I can handle about a 6. I will try super hard to follow the round, but it'll be in your best interest to slow down (substantially so on theory). LD/Policy experience. Always up for a K if there’s a solid link, but not familiar with most K lit. I’ll vote for almost anything with a valid warrant behind it.

Please, ask me anything before the round. I've been judging national circuit LD for the last few years and there are no arguments I'm opposed to on principle (except overtly discriminatory arguments...), but there's a solid chance that I won't have the same understanding of how a round should break down or what's meta. Asking me stuff before the round minimizes this chance.

My default weighing preferences (I can absolutely be convinced away from these):

Pre-fiat K > T = Theory > Post-fiat K > Substance. Condo is fine, running a ton of blips or spikes is sleazy and I'm way less likely to vote for you on those.

I default to truth-testing in general and reasonability on theory. I have a high threshold on theory and probably won't vote on without clear in-round abuse.

Pet peeve: people who say "moral obligation" or "d-rule" with no warrant beyond "x is bad". If you want me to weigh your args as a prior question to your opponent's args, I need a solid warrant for that.

Higher speaks indicate I learned something from you (either about debate or about your argument) and/or that you clashed often and effectively.

Lower speaks indicate that I think your strategy was sleazy (tricks / spikes), or that you were a jerk to your opponent.

I might disclose speaks, but I'll be the one to tell you--please don't ask.