Name: __Erin Connearney____

BDL Judge Paradigm

1. Your experience with policy debate (delete those that do not apply)

Current/Former Coach of a MS Team

2. If any of the above apply, please list the debate event(s) with which you are familiar (delete those that do not apply)

Policy

Which schools have you been affiliated with in the last 5 years?

Edwards Middle School

3.     How many years have you been judging policy debate? 2 years

4.     I have judged (0-10) rounds this season.  

5.     Which best describes your approach to judging policy debate? (select one, delete the others)

Stock Issues (if Aff wins all stock issues, Aff wins round)
Policymaker (judge assumes role of policymaker in decision-making)

7. Assess your attitude on the Rate of Delivery of spoken arguments on a scale of 1 (Slow and Deliberate) to 9 (Very Rapid).

(Slow and deliberate 1)  6  (9 Very rapid)

8. Assess your attitude on the Quantity of Arguments you prefer in a round on a scale of 1 (A few, well-developed) to 9 (The more arguments, the better)

(A few well developed arguments 1)   3   (9 the more arguments the better)

9. Assess how you weigh the importance of Communication Skill vs. Issues in a round.

(Communication Skills 1)  8  (9 Resolving substantive issues)

Name  Erin Connearney________

10. Assess your willingness to vote on the types of arguments below on a scale of 1 (complete acceptable) to 9 (complete unacceptable).

Topicality................................ Acceptable   9   Unacceptable

Counterplans........................... Acceptable  6  Unacceptable

Generic Disadvantages............... Acceptable  2  Unacceptable

Conditional Negative Positions...... Acceptable  3  Unacceptable

Debate Theory Arguments........... Acceptable  5  Unacceptable

Critique (Kritik) Arguments.........Acceptable   9   Unacceptable

I competed in PF for 4 years and BQ for one day. My achievements include championing the 2016 Lumos Invitational and still flexing my trophy from it 4 years later. I'm mostly tech over truth unless you say something really really dumb.

Speed: Even though I can follow speed decently, I don't like unnecessarily fast debates. If you go fast to fit more content and the extra content is unnecessary, your speaks will be bad even if you speak clearly.

Weighing: Please both weigh AND metaweigh (weigh your weighing mechanisms). For example, if you're weighing on probability and your opponent is weighing on magnitude, explain why I should prefer probability weighing. I also appreciate unique weighing mechanisms.

2nd Rebuttal: I don't care whether you frontline turns or not. If you think it's strategic, go for it. Don't read new contentions as "offensive overviews."

First Summary: Defense is optional but suggested.

Theory: I have very little experience with theory but if you think it's necessary and argue it in an understandable way I'm willing to vote off it.

Trigger Warnings: Read them if you're running arguments that could be triggering. I'm willing to drop you if a team calls you out on this. IF YOU ARE RUNNING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ON THE UBI TOPIC, READ A TRIGGER WARNING.

Other:

-I really like when teams drop case and go for turns.

-If you smoothly incorporate good Taylor Swift lyrics into a speech I may increase your speaks.

-You can message me on Facebook or email me if you want comments or have questions :)

I am a lay judge (sorry), so here are my preferences. I apology that most of these are going to be very irritating to have to adapt to:

speech content

• reexplain your link chain in two minute speeches

• explain how your responses affect your opponents’ arguments (especially if you’re completely delinking or non-uniquing them) not only in rebuttal, but also in two minute speeches

• in rebuttal, I would prefer for you to read fewer responses and really flesh out what they mean instead of dumping as many responses as possible

speaking

• speak at an understandable pace (but don’t be condescendingly slow)

• SIGNPOST! tell me which side’s argument you’re talking about and what contention it is. I don’t totally know what links and impacts are so please briefly explain the part of the argument you’re talking about

• avoid debate jargon (even stuff that you’re probably used to saying like “non-unique” and “turn”) and replace those words with what they actually mean (replace “non-unique” with “this happens whether you vote pro or con” and “turn” with “this actually helps our side,” etc.)

Note: My son helped me write this based on my experiences with past tournaments.

Good with anything, speeed- make sure that you are clear and I can hear what you say.

Topicality: 

Explain why its abusive in the round and why it matters to the debate as a whole.

Policy/fiat/USGF affs:

tell me why policy making is the best thing ever/ why it's preferable to the Neg's roll of the judge and ballot/etc. Explain your permutations, what they look like, how they work, why it functions.

Case:

Case Debate is important, make sure that you engage in it!

K/DA

Give good link analysis, the more links that you have specific to the case the aff is running the better, if you only have generic links then I probably will not vote for it so make sure you focus on the link and alternative debate.

I went to McCallie (TN) and did primarily Public Forum for 5 years and I worked for Capitol for a summer. While I debated mostly regionally (GA-AL) I competed occasionally on the national circuit when school constraints allowed and did fairly well. I've done limited amounts of WSD and currently do APDA and BP at Northeastern, where I'm studying Economics and Finance. Important stuff is listed below:

Preferences

These are probably the only things you care about. Here's the rundown:

1) Arguments need to be extended fully for me to evaluate them.

2) It's a lot easier for you to illustrate a path to victory based on your offense rather than your defense. (There are exceptions, but this generally holds)

3) I want to sign a ballot of minimum intervention. This means that you should weigh early and often. One of the biggest things that messes up rounds is lack of weighing between mutually exclusive warrants that are trying to link into the same piece of offense. Be clear about why I ought prefer your conception.

4) Use crossfire strategically, but don't be an asshole. If you're a dick, your speaks will be lowered.

5) DO NOT EXTEND THROUGH INK. This is probably my biggest pet peeve.

6) Arguments premised on logic are more sound than arguments premised on author's names. Tell me what your evidence is saying (if you need the card) and why it's more credible than the version of reality I'm getting from your opponents.

7) Theory is fine to check abuse. It should be run as a last resort, only in conditions where it is not possible/extremely difficult to engage normally with the resolution, or in cases where a team has created a structural disadvantage.

8) Do you feel like giving me a roadmap? If you're not doing something atypical, please don't. This being said, do signpost during speeches.

9) Coin flip, side selection, and speaking order can all be decided if I'm not there, and I prefer teams to take care of this before entering the room at flighted tournaments.

If you have any questions about anything here (or things not mentioned here), shoot me a message on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/tpatri10).

I have debated for six years (middle and high school) and was an NDSA Nationals qualifier. I have experienced all sorts of argument forms. Being a K debater, I am very comfortable with Kritiks. That does not mean by simply running it, it will receive my ballot. Like all arguments, THEY MUST BE WELL ARTICULATED.

I must admit I am not a big fan of Topicality, and will take a bit of convincing to vote for T. Naturally, if well argued, and shakily contested, it may win you a ballot.

You should assume I know nothing of the topic, for the debater's burden is to convince the judge of the effectiveness of their arguments. I vote off the flow.

Important note for in-person tournaments only: I am disabled and use a trained service dog. If you’re in a room with me, there will be a dog quietly laying under my chair. The dog will not touch you, get close to you, or acknowledge your existence at all.

That being said, IF YOU HAVE A FEAR OF DOGS SO BAD YOU CANNOT BE IN A ROOM WITH ONE, please tell someone so they can assign you a different judge.

——

Current Affiliation: Boston Debate League

Background: Debated PF in Eastern Europe for seven years, been judging policy and PF in Boston for seven more.

Rounds judged this year: n/a

_____

Background:

- I'm a pretty standard tab judge. I'm happy to vote on any sort of issue as long as as there is decent weighing and impact analysis explaining to me why I should vote for it.

- That being said, I will drop arguments that are clearly offensive (racist/ableist/homophobic/etc.)

- It is important to me that you extend your arguments if you want me to vote on them: I very strongly tend towards the flow and voting on positions that have been present throughout the debate.

- Jargon and spreading are totally fine with me. I do flow much better if you help me out with good organization - signposting and roadmaps are always fantastic. 

- I strongly prefer being presented with a framework: I strongly dislike brining my own values into a debate. It makes the round very hard to adjudicate.

____

Subjective preferences:

(I try not to vote on these, but I do want to acknowledge my personal biases!)

- The kind of round I like listening to best sticks very closely to the topic: stock issues, disadvantages, counterplans, counterwarrants, topicality, etc.

- I'm more inclined to vote on a Kritik if you relate them to what is currently happening in the room (or at least explain why they're relevant)

- I can and will vote on theory if the need arises, I just personally find it tedious and I won't enjoy the round as much.

____

Stylistic notes and speaker points:

- I prefer you use variation in your tone in order to highlight important issues. This will have a positive effect on your speaks.

- Overly hostile behavior is unpleasant. Talking over each other in cross-ex, raising your voice in an attempt to threaten or silence, or making rude comments about your opponents themselves rather than their arguments will lower your speaks the more you do them.

- While jargon and spreading is good ***with me***, I do ask that you clear it with everyone in the room first and offer accommodations if anyone needs them.