laurenlucillejohnson@gmail.com

Director of Debate at Weber State University - presently

Assistant Coach at Western Washington University. 2020-2022

Graduate Assistant Coach at the University of Wyoming 2018-2020

I debated for Gonzaga University 2014-2018

Do what you do best and feel most comfortable and confident forwarding in the debate- I judge a myriad of styles and types of arguments in debates- while my paradigm gives you a sense of how I view decision-making calculus- I first and foremost view my role as a judge as an ethical educator.

Kritiks- I enjoy critical debates. Feel free to run them on both sides. I am well versed in feminist/queer, postmodern, and gender theory, although I am also familiar with other critical literature bases. The link debate is the most important part of a critique for me. Really good impact analysis does not matter if there is no link to the 1AC. I also think that performative links are valid arguments and can be used as reasons for why the permutation does not solve. I generally think the aff should get perms although can be persuaded otherwise in an instance where the aff is not about the resolution or in pure methods debates.

Role of the Ballot - I think the role of the ballot is to vote for who wins their arguments and does the better debating. If you have an argument otherwise, I will be more persuaded/default to a functionality/interpretation of how my vote works if both teams get a chance of receiving that vote. I do not find a "Role of the Ballot" claim that is to "vote for us" to be persuasive. I think it's dishonest and transparently one-sided to interpret the role of a ballot through one team's participation.

Aff framework versus the K- Your interpretation should probably say you should get to weigh your impacts vs. the K. I prefer debates about the substance of the arguments over debates that end up being exclusively about aff framework, if your framework argument ends up mooting the substance of both the aff and the K (aff solvency and alt solvency) then it becomes a messy debate that I will not enjoy adjudicating.

Performative/Non-Traditional Debates - I think the aff should be about something pertaining to the topic and recommend something be done that is different than the status quo (does NOT have to be a plan or involve the United States Federal Government). If the aff chooses to not do this, they'll have to win why the topical version of the aff can't solve for the performance/discussion that the aff began and win an impact turn to framework. In terms of impact analysis. You should be able to explain what reasonable neg ground exists versus your aff that is within the realm of topic-related research. That said, I'll still vote for an aff that is not about the topic if they win their impact turns to framework/accessibility questions.

Framework versus Performative/Non-Traditional Affs- I think that the negative either has to win that there is a ‘topical’ version of the aff that can solve for the substance and performance/discussion of the affirmative, or that their interpretation of debate can allow for better access to the solvency mechanism/ address the impacts of the affirmative. I say ‘topical’ because I am generally unpersuaded that the aff must defend the “hypothetical enactment of the plan by the USFG”, I think that the negative has to prove that the affirmative either justify an interpretation of the topic that makes it impossible to be prepared to debate this particular aff, or that the affirmative is not grounded in a methodology that changes something in the status quo or the lives/experiences of the debaters in the round. I think that the best deliberative model of debate is one in which the affirmative presents a strategy that can generate effective deliberation on a topic because it is something that is contestable and allows for a debate to occur regarding the desirability and effectiveness of two competing strategies/methods to address the affirmatives impacts/concerns.

Topicality- If the debate becomes a large T debate, please slow down so I can get the nuances and particularities of the arguments and debate. I flow on paper so keep that in mind. Limits and predictability are not impacts they are internal links. Discussing how limits and predictability impact debate/ research/ neg prep and what that means in terms of education etc. (This also goes for framework)

Theory- Generally, I think reasonable conditionality (example: 1 Kritik and 1 CP) is a good thing but conditionality bad arguments can be used strategically. I generally err neg on theory arguments that are not conditionality, but I am open to persuasion by either side of the debate.

Counterplans- I generally will vote on a counterplan if you win that you solve the aff, which means you don’t particularly need to win a big risk of your offense to win.

Disads- You need a good disad turns case argument or a case take out to be a round winning strategy. Most of the time I will filter my decision for case versus the disad debates through impact calculus.

Cypress Bay '21 | UCF '25 (not debating)

Add me to the chain plz: zachlevdebate@gmail.com

Prefs

I know you are really only here to do your prefs, I'll try to make it as easy as possible. TLDR, I really couldn't care less what you do, just do you.

In HS I cut our AFFs (90% said extinction), Process CPs, and Ptx DAs so do with this what you wish.

If you are reading an AFF with a "non-extinction" impact, you need to beat the DA, framing doesn't take out the DA it just changes how I weigh one impact v. another.

If you are reading an AFF without a plan, I'm probably not the most experienced judge for you. I never read a K AFF and only ever went for T or the Cap K against them.

If you like to read Ks on the NEG, I will probably have a higher bar/need more explanation for certain kritiks (Baudrillard, Psychoanalysis, Bataille, etc.) but for the more basic kritiks (IR Ks, Cap, Settler Colonialism, etc) I will probably know what you are saying (doesn't mean you don't have to/shouldn't explain your theory/how the alt works/not give examples).

Specifics:

Theory

Condo is generally good, but a poor 2NC/2NR to "dispo solves" or "pre round condo" can be exploited.

All theory args except condo are reasons to reject the arg, not the team.

Process CPs are good with a rez-specific advocate, PICs are good, 50 State Uniform Fiat is good, Limited Con Cons are good, and so are most other args.

T v. Plans

Limits > ground

Reasonability needs to be coupled with a C/I (apparently ppl think reasonability means being "reasonably topical" and goes with a W/M arg. it doesnt <3

T v. Planless AFFs

Fairness is an impact.

2AR should ideally be a C/I with some form of offense (impact turn or some unique offense).

I am a huge fan of the planless effects-topical AFF that defends some sort of action and links to DAs.

Ks

AFF gets to be weighed most of the time (unless something goes really wrong in the 1AR/2AR).

Please no overviews over like 15 seconds or "I'll do the X debate here!".

The more specific the link/more lines picked out of ev the more compelling your arg is/the higher the burden for the AFF to answer said arg is.

CPs

CPs need to be functionally AND textually competitive (but like...still haven't heard a reason for why LIMITED intrinsic perms are bad in the 2NR).

Word PICs out of words NOT in the plan are NOT competitive.

I'll judge kick the CP by default but if the 2NR doesn't say judge kick and the 2AR says don't judge kick, I wont.

DAs

Should almost always turn the case.

Weird/out of the ordinary/reverse politics disads are pretty cool and will def be rewarded with high speaks.

Misc.

Plz don't call me judge.

Presumption flips NEG by default but AFF when a CP is in the 2NR.

If both teams MUTUALLY agree to debate on a previous topic because this one sucks, that's fine with me.