Jeremy Christensen

Davis and Elkins College

Background: Not sure if or how this helps, but people seem to ask. I competed in NDT and CEDA (pre-merger), have coached collegiate NDT, LD, NPDA, Worlds and IPDA programs on regional and national circuits for the past thirty years, as well as high school policy and LD. That said, I make mistakes, don’t know everything, and what I’ll provide is how I see things now. You can probably move me on certain things, but that will depend upon the particular circumstances.

Speed: Be clear. I’ll give you a warning if needs be, after the second warning I stop giving them for the round and will try to get down analytics as well as I can. As NFA has a rule regarding speed, I would say respect the other person and his/her limitations and needs. I'm not encouraging speed, but I'm not the law on it either.

Courtesy: Be nice. I know that things can get chippy, and that’s okay. Just respect the other person or zero speaker points are in your future.

Procedurals:

“T” is a high threshold issue for me on this year’s LD topic (2019-2020). The resolution is so loose that about anything kind of looks topical. “Substantial” and “Energy sectors” seem to be the exceptions to that. I’ll vote on competing interpretations, and I don’t need articulated abuse to vote on T.

Spec arguments for me are high threshold any time they are run and are preemptive strikes against intrinsicness or severance arguments from the AFF to no-link a disad, case turn, or solvency takeout. Articulated abuse should be present for the argument to win and must be run in conjunction with something else. That said: if an AFF cold concedes the argument, I guess I’ll vote on it.

Condo: AFFs should ask for CP status. Probably, out of most critics, I’m the most open to conditionality being okay. I think it is situational and depends upon the AFF. In short, the issue is a coin-flip. I'll listen to the condo good/bad debate for sure.

Critical arguments

Sounds great. I view all kritiks as personal policy advocacies containing inherency (link), alternative (solvency), and impacts (harms). That means all kritiks need to articulate solvency. PICS are great, Perms are delightful, and really, critical disadvantages to methods are fantastic.

Framework debates need to move past “I have to roleplay my oppressor” toward a sustained reimagining of the lens by which one interprets phenomeon. I expect the alt. to solve, and I rarely, if ever, vote on “Vote Neg/Aff to reject.” You need some positive alternative besides rejection to get a shot at the ballot.

Counterplans/Disadvantages:

The usual here. If I’m given the risk of a disad link versus the risk of solvency, someone needs to resolve how I make that decision. Beyond that, I’m fine with whatever strategy you have. I have no prejudices against or for certain disadvantages. Weigh out timeframe, magnitude, and probability, obviously important always, extraordinarily important this year.

Evidence

Given there is some discussion on this question in the community let me say two things: 1) it is in your interest to spotlight credentials of those being cited in the body of evidence attributed to someone else; 2) it is neither plagiarism nor a rules violation to fail to give that information (a fact that, if not true, would make credentialing infinitely regressive as debaters chased down citation and footnote references for all academic work); 3) it is, however, strategically unwise. If the credibility of the author is not articulated at some point in the speech, I do not see how I can backfill that argument for a debater. In short, if you want me to vote on the quality of your evidence, that debate needs to appear in a constructive and/or rebuttal.

Underview:

The older I get, the more holistically I view debate rounds. It’s not a choice, so much as an evolution in my thought. That said, I like line-by-line debates, expect debaters to apply arguments, and understand NR and 2ARs as writing the ballot for me. I do not like to intervene, but I will to adjudicate a question, and will likely do so unfavorably (from your view) if you do not take control of framing the round.

Have fun. Enjoy yourself. I’m sure you will do your best; I’ll do my best, and hopefully, that will be all we can ask of each other.

Debate:

I do not mind spreading. If you are an inarticulate spreader, then you will send me your case as well as your opponent:isabella.droginske@k12.wv.us

I strongly oppose paraphrasing evidence. If I am your judge I would strongly suggest reading only direct quotations in your speeches.

I greatly appreciate framework debates and debates that really investigate philosophical ideas. I have a fair knowledge base of Rawls, Kant, Locke, Rousseau, Bentham, Mills, and general schools of thought.

I do not mind Ks but excessive T is something I feel very strongly against.

I believe that debate should have the highest form of decorum throughout. I do dock speaker point for lack of decorum and respect to your opponent, judge(s), and the art of debate.

I make final decisions based on my flow-Tabula Rasa.

—LD: I appreciate robust value debates. Don’t collapse. Flow value to your side.

--PF: I dislike excessive time spent on card checking. I will not read cards after the round.

--Congress: I'm looking for analysis that engages the legislation, not just the general concepts. I believe that presentation is very important in how persuasive you are. I will note fluency breaks and distracting gestures. However, I am primarily a flow judge, so I might not be looking at you during your speeches. Being able to clearly articulate and weigh impacts (clash) is paramount. I dislike too much rehash, but I want to see a clear narrative. What is the story of your argument.

Speech: Do not be on your phone while a performer is performing in a round. Decorum counts.

Prepared events should know their times and be, well, prepared from the start.

—Extemp: Citations and organization are really important to me, but so is the entertainment part. Be compelling. Have an interesting AGD. Connect it at the end of your speech.

Background: I've been involved in every area of debate for around 8 years now. I did four years of debate in high school (Parkersburg South HS, WV) and three semesters of collegiate debate (Marshall University). I am currently a masters student in chemistry at Marshall University. My HS experience was mostly lay debate (some exceptions to this), but my collegiate experience is in NFA-LD (single-person policy). I coached high school debate for four years during my undergraduate years in Huntington, WV (PF, LD, and Congress). Also broke LD at NSDA (senior, HS), NCFL (Junior, HS), and NFA nationals (Freshman, College).

NFA-LD

I'm fine with speechdrop or an email chain (brndn3379@gmail.com).

High level things for you to know about me: I'm out of the loop on the topic, so don't assume that I know topic specifics (except for the chemistry/physics behind nuclear weapons..). I can keep up with whatever pace you want to go at, but I don't flow off the doc (especially important for T shells and long analytics; if I can't hear it, I'm not flowing it). Default competing interps on T/theory, default util, default layering for me is Theory/T > K > plan/CP. Conditionality is good (you can still run condo bad), multi-condo is probably less good. I find myself to be very tech > truth, but also find myself increasingly skeptical of bad arguments that are executed well (this hasn't changed my decisions as of yet). NFA-LD rules is a bad voter generally, but if you are going to use it, then please justify why I should care about the rules. I am probably going to be more tolerant of less serious arguments than most judges, but I'm not going to be happy if those arguments aren't at least executed well.

Disclosure is good, I ran disclosure theory, I will vote on disclosure theory, but a note from me is that I prefer disclosure shells to include in-round resolvability. Basically, if you include something like "if they agree to start posting starting with this round, I'll drop the shell" is what I like to see because I tend to think that 1 - it is the best way to get people on board with disclosure and 2 - there are small school debaters that genuinely may not have known about the norm or how to do it (I was one of them at the start of my collegiate career). It isn't a must (if you make arguments that the lack of disclosure skewed this particular round, that's sufficient for me to vote on disclosure anyways), but it is my general preference.

On T, I typically err on the side that potential abuse is sufficient to vote on T. Proven abuse is always more compelling, but I view T broadly as a test of what the topic should look like, not what it does look like. TVAs are also not essential, but can help for particular AFFs (ones that very much seem to be in the realm of the topic, but your interp seemingly excludes).

Most of the stuff in the below section for HS LD applies to NFA-LD for me, but feel free to ask any specific questions before the round.

LD (HS, Circuit) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TL;DR: If you read anything in my paradigm during the age of online debate, let it be the section on speed please. Extend tags and authors, but if you only want one then do tags. Collapse collapse collapse. Probably don't go for skep or permissibility unless you intend on explaining it (same goes for metaethics in general).

Ranking of what I'll be most comfortable evaluating:

Policy (Plan/CP/DA debates) > T > K > Deep Phil > Performance > skep/permissibility

Speed: 2020 Update Debaters really need to go slower on analytics and do a lot more signposting with this online format. Clarity simply isn't the best. Feel free to top speed cards in the doc, but if it isn’t there then please go slower (I’ve had a ton of CXs full of people asking for arguments they missed). Calling speed and clear is not really feasible when you are reading through analytics because I have to tab over and unmute myself, call clear, and then tab back to my flow. Connection issues on any end in the round would be devestating. If I can't hear what you said, then I can't flow it.

Speech docs: I would like to be given the speech docs. I'm fine with speechdrop, email chains, or flashing evidence (2020 update: RIP to flashing evidence). My email is brndn3379@gmail.com

General paradigm: I'm pretty tab; the round is yours and the less work that I have to do the better. There are very few circumstances where I intervene in the flow of the round, and you will see those instances in the rest of my paradigm. I default to offense/defense in most cases if you don't give me an alternative framework. I will judge the round on whatever framework is given to me and is won in the round. If there are competing frameworks, I really need to hear clear reasons to prefer one framework over the other, I don't want to hear you just repeat your cards from your constructive; give me a clear reason why your framework is better for evaluating the round in comparison to your opponent's framework. Also, please link arguments to both frameworks when possible, otherwise it becomes difficult for me to justify evaluating your argument in the event you lose framework (hopefully you already know this, but I've seen too many rounds where the competitors don't). In general, I'm not as familiar with the high school K lit nor the super deep theory debates. I like theory and k's, just don't assume that I already know what you are talking about. Explanation is key. I never debated skep/permissibility, so if you want to run those then just make sure you explain it to me like I'm dumb (which I probably am).

ROTB/FW: Just give me warrants for the FW, reasons to prefer, and link your args to it and I'll be fine.

Theory/Topicality: Yea, I lump them together. They are constructed in the same way and really function in a similar way so I always have considered them pretty much the same thing. I default competing interps unless I'm told otherwise. It is really to your advantage to read a counter-interp, but if you don't have one or the argument is just a time suck then I am totally okay with you just going for "I meet" and reasonability. Overall, I don't prefer T debates, but if that is your strat I won't stop you from going for it (and of course you should go for it against an Abusive AFF/NEG). I'm probably biased towards disclosure being good if you feel you need to know that, but don't expect to just win disclosure theory because you run it. 2020/21/and 22 update: Please disclose. Just do it. C'mon.

RVIs: More than fine for me. Probably read "AFF gets RVIs" in the AC if you expect to be going for it. Not necessary in front of me, but probably more strategic.

K: Valid arguments. I won't be familiar with a lot of the topic lit on Ks, especially the ones run on the high school circuit, so just lean on the side of over-explaining your kritik if you really want me to vote on it. You also will want to clearly explain the ALT to me so that I can evaluate the ALT/plan/perm debate effectively. If you can't explain your K to your opponent in cross-x, then it is going to be really hard for me to justify voting on it. Conditional Ks often feel like perfcons, but I'm not going to say anything if the AFF doesn't.

CP: Pretty much the same thing as the K paradigm here. I need to understand what your advocacy is. The only large difference is that I am more than happy to vote on a conditional CP in comparison to a conditional K.

Tricks: I don't particularly like tricks that are like "RESOLVED means vote aff" or something silly like that. I do, however, enjoy "tricks" where a voter is hidden in an advantage or where there is a double link on an argument that baits the other debater to only respond to one of the links. Just try to make what you are doing somewhat reasonable and I'll still vote on it. Skep and permissibility are okay I guess, but probably not something I'd love to see in most rounds.

Profanity: I don't personally care. The college circuit uses profanity all the time and I think it makes people more comfortable speaking if they are one who generally uses profanity outside of the round. Just make sure that your opponent is okay with it before the round.

Arguments that I don't want to hear: Racism good, sexism good. In general, oppression isn't good and the risk of emotional harm to other debaters outweighs any 'educational value' of allowing those kinds of arguments. I'm generally fine with extinction good as long as you don't violate the above sentiments and the warrants are sensible.

Speaks;

Speaks are based on where I think you will land at the specific tournament. This isn't perfect, but speaks never are.

30: You are taking the gold without a doubt. Literal perfection with no critiques for me to give you.

29.5-29.9: Late elims (definition of this depends on the tournament)

29-29.5: Much more likely to break than to not

28.5-29: On cusp. Maybe break, maybe not.

27.5-28.5: Middle of the pack for the tournament.

26.5-27.5: I can clearly point out numerous errors in your performance.

<26.5: You messed up somehow. Usually cheating, being disrespectful.

LD (HS, Traditional) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you scrolled to this section, you pretty much know what should be in a traditional LD round. Give me a solid value/criterion setup and good contentions. I'm fine with speed of course, but if your opponent isn't then do not go for it, especially in a traditional LD round. I'd prefer to not see you run progressive arguments against a traditional debater if that is the pairing in the round, I've always felt it is easier for a circuit debater to go traditional than vice versa. Any other questions you have for this area, just ask me in the round please (it shouldn't be too complex given the nature of traditional LD).

PF ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All speeches must respond to the previous speech (except for the 2nd constructive, duh). Defense is not sticky, so respond to it. I'm fine with smaller responses and then blowing them up if your opponents go for that defense in summary/FF. Most specifically, FF should only extend from summary. If it wasn't in summary, it is not going to be on my FF flow. With all this being said, it should be obvious that it is best to collapse early in front of me (you realistically should be doing this in front of any judge, but whatever).

Speed: I can keep up with any speed the debaters are comfortable with. I will not be the limiting factor; your opponents determine how fast you can speak in a given round. Don't spread against opponents that cannot keep up with it. That being said, don't spread over paraphrased evidence. You can't expect me to get both the citation and the implication when they are read in four seconds.

Weighing: I need extremely clear weighing at the end of the round. Weighing arguments introduced in final focus are new arguments. I prefer weighing to be introduced as early as possible, but summary at the latest. Weighing must have warranting. Just saying "prefer on scope" doesn't tell me why scope is the weighing mech I should use. Weighing is also important on T/theory, so if you choose to run those, I need a clear idea of why I should care about predictability/limits/ground/etc.

Evidence: Paraphrasing is OK in PF (but not preferred at all, I am willing to vote on paraphrasing bad). Slow down on the citations though so I can get them down as well as what you are paraphrasing (since I have less time to type than I would in a circuit LD format). All evidence has to be accessible to your opponents (and to me should I call for evidence after the round). Give evidence in an efficient manner. I won't start your prep time on reading evidence until your opponents hand it to you and you start reading and I'll stop your prep when you stop reading. I usually won't call for evidence after the round unless you tell me to, but there are some exceptions that I won't go into detail on here.

Post-Round: If the tournament allows it, I will disclose so that you know what to be doing in your next rounds. I do this in hopes that it makes your round more educational and my adjudication of it more beneficial for you. Do not post-round me (by this, I mean being hostile about your questioning of my RFD. I am totally fine having a discussion about the round because that can be incredibly valuable, but I don't want an aggressive environment). I understand that losing a round is frustrating (I've been there too, ya'll), but I made my decision as best I could and cannot change it after I disclose. If you think I missed an argument that should have won you the round, then you should take that as an indication that maybe there is a way you can improve how you delivered that argument. Nobody likes post-round debates, just don't do it.

Progressive Arguments: Any of these arguments are fine in front of me when done well (you can read my circuit LD paradigm to see my thoughts on them in general). The caveat here is that you should tailor the arguments to allow your opponents to engage with them. Reading progressive arguments because you know your opponents aren't experienced with them is abusive. You can run them, but explain the tech clearly so that they have an opportunity to engage with them please. I liken this to how you probably shouldn't be super techy in front of novices for the sole purpose of an easy win.

Anything else: Just ask me before the round and I'll let ya know.

Public Forum: As a PF judge, I am fine with speed, but please do not spread. If you spread and I cannot flow all of your arguments then they will not carry through the round. My flow is greater than your flow. I am fine with all competitors keeping track of their time but I will keep the official time. If you continue speaking after time has elapsed, I will not flow your arguments. Please be mindful of time when calling for cards, it can be a time suck and you may end up using all of your prep time. I will keep track of your prep time (especially when card calling). I will tell you when I start and end the timer. I will not follow your directives to do so and the time that I have is the official time. Decorum is important to me as well, while I won't give you a loss for poor decorum, I will give you lower speaker points.

Lincoln Douglas: As a LD judge, I am more of a traditional judge and prefer that the debate come down to one of the framework rather than contentions. I am fine with speed, but please do not spread. If you spread and I cannot flow all of your arguments then they will not carry through the round. My flow is greater than your flow. I am fine with all competitors keeping track of their time but I will keep the official time. If you continue speaking after time has elapsed, I will not flow your arguments. Please be mindful of time when calling for cards, it can be a time suck and you may end up using all of your prep time. I will keep track of your prep time (especially when card calling). I will tell you when I start and end the timer. I will not follow your directives to do so and the time that I have is the official time. Decorum is important to me as well, while I won't give you a loss for poor decorum, I will give you lower speaker points.

Congress: As a Congress judge, I like to hear clear and supported evidence in order to make an opinion about the legislation being debated. I enjoy hearing passionate speakers who care about their constituents. Decorum is important to me as well, while I won't give you a loss for poor decorum, I will give you lower speaker points.

I have judged debate events off and on for 35+ years.

For my first 15 years, I primarily judged high school Policy Debate and only occasionally high school Lincoln-Douglas Debate.

More recently, I have judged rounds of COLLEGE IPDA Debate (most), Lincoln-Douglas Debate, and NPDA Debate (least) andHIGH SCHOOL Lincoln-Douglas Debate, Public Forum Debate, and SPAR/Extemp Debate.

Although my initial experience was in high school Policy Debate, I do not like high speed. If I am leaning forward to catch everything you are saying or you are gasping for air between utterances, you are talking too fast. If that is the case or you're overwhelming my ability to process information, I will say SPEED. By the same token, if you're speaking is not clear, I will say CLEAR. Please adjust accordingly if I say SPEED or CLEAR.

Ultimately, I judge holistically - the better debater or debate team wins the round. This almost always is the debater or debate team that carried the debate on my flow. In that very rare case when it is not, it is because I consider effective communication in deciding which debater or debate team won (and in assigning speaker points).

In a policy debate, I look to stock issues; in value debate, I look to which side best upholds the value(s) presented; in a fact debate, I ordinarily look to which side persuaded me by a preponderance of the evidence or similar standard offered by the debaters.

I do try to come in with an open mind. As a result, I will listen to and potentially "vote" any issue you raise. But I prefer for debaters on both sides to address the topic and clash thoughtfully with the other side's arguments.

If you run a kritik or counterplan, I expect you to explain it clearly (especially the kritik) and establish a clear link to the topic/case you're debating. I'm not an expert on every critical lens that challenges status quo thinking.

I dislike spreading. Identify major weaknesses in your opponents' arguments and flesh them out for me. Presenting a lot of one-sentence arguments in the hope your opponent can't respond to all of them will not help you win my ballot.

I judge on what I hear. I expect debaters to both make arguments and use evidence (even in IPDA/extemp debate - even though I understand there will be less evidence there). I also expect debaters to summarize why they won; don't spend so much time refuting arguments that you leave no time to tell me clearly why you won.

I graduated from Parkersburg High School in 2015, Marshall University in 2019, and West Virginia University College of Law in 2022. I did Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas, and Congress debate when I was in high school. I have been judging all three events since I graduated in 2015. I'm currently a criminal defense attorney in Charleston, West Virginia.

I tend to not like to lay out a paradigm. Asking me what my paradigm is and then failing to adhere to it sets students up for failure, instead I judge the debate that is put forward. That being said, I can keep up pretty cleanly with speed and jargon if you do it well. Some people say, "you said you were fine with speed but on my ballot you took away speaker points for my pace!" What I mean is I can keep up with speed if you still enunciate and present well. The same applies to using jargon effectively.

When it comes to weighing, I value solvency and linkage. You can't pose a problem and not effectively say how your side addresses it. Additionally, you can't say "neg solves for x" without giving me the linkage for how it solves for it.

Other than that, I don't maintain any preferences and I judge the debate on its face on the guidelines the rules provide.