he/him pronouns

Debate Preferences:

I do PF. I'm comfortable with any jargon and any tech. Do whatever you need to do to win the debate and I'll do my best to follow, just make sure you're clear. I don't flow cross but I'll listen so make sure you bring up any important moments in your speeches. Please please collapse in summary. If you want me to vote off it put it in FF and summary. Please please weigh in FF, you can start weighing in summary but your weighing also needs to be in FF. Before any speech past 1st Reb give an order or off time roadmap please or atleast sign post really well.

Everyone will get 28-30 speaks unless as seen below. Be funny or especially interesting and you'll get 30.

Other:

No tolerance for any kind of hate, no personal attacks; no homophobia, racism, sexism, Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, transphobia, etc.

EXPERIENCE

I competed in Policy (among other events) from 2006 to 2010 and in British Parliamentary at the college level from 2010 to 2014. I've been judging since then, and have been running the debate programs at a number of schools since 2016. Please read the applicable paradigm categorized by format below:

POLICY

I'm a Stock Issues judge! My belief is that we're here to debate a policy option, not discuss external advocacy.

Generally not in favor of the K. If a team chooses to run one with me, provide a clear weighing mechanism as to why I should prefer the K over the policy issue we're actually here to debate.

I do not look upon Performance cases favorably. If you want to pull that stunt and expect to win, go do Oratory.

I'm able to understand speed just fine, but prefer clear articulation. Pitching your voice up while continuing to read at the same speed is not spreading.

I highly value clash and a weighing mechanism in the round, and strongly encourage analysis on arguments made. I work to avoid judge intervention if at all possible, unless there is clear abuse of the debate format or both teams have failed to provide effective weighing mechanisms. Don't just give me arguments and expect me to do the math; prove to me that you've won the argument, and then demonstrate how that means you've won the round.

I have a deep hatred of disclosure theory. I expect teams that I judge to be able to respond and adapt to new arguments in-round instead of whining about how they didn't know the 1AC or 1NC ahead of time. If you want to run this, I have an exceedingly high threshold for proving abuse.

Please do not assume that I'm reading along in the doc with you. Debate's meant to be about oral communication, and only stuff that's actually said in round makes it into my flow. If I request the doc, it's purely for verification needs in case there's a challenge.

Finally, I have low tolerance for tech issues. I've been doing this since laptops first came onto the debate scene, and I've never seen computers crash or "crash" more consistently than at debate tournaments in the middle of a round. If there are persistent issues relating to files being ready or shareable, I may offer you a flash drive if I have one for a manual transfer, but I also reserve the right to factor that into my decision if it's a severe issue and extending the round beyond a reasonable point.


LINCOLN-DOUGLAS

I am a firm believer in traditional LD debate. LD was designed around Value-Criterion debate of the philosophical implications of a resolution, and I'm very happy to see debates of this nature. If you want to run a Plan, CP, or any variation of that, I would like to suggest 3 options for you: Go do Policy, have your coach strike me, or hope for a different judge.

I am not a fan of Kritiks, but haven't been shy about voting for them in the past when they're well-impacted and developed with a competitive alt. You're going to have to do some serious work if you want to try and get me to prefer the K, but it's certainly possible. A K without an alternative is just whining.

No speed. A conversational speaking rate is more than adequate if you've done your homework and refined your case.

Performance/meme cases will result in swift and appalling reprisals in your speaker points, even in the unlikely event that you win the round. A low-point win is virtually inevitable in that case, and indicates that your opponent has somehow become incapacitated during the round and was unable to gurgle a response.

Adaptation to your audience is one of the most basic and essential factors in debate, and public speaking in general. Please keep that in mind when formulating your strategy for the round.

PUBLIC FORUM

I strongly prefer traditional public forum debate. Do not treat this like Policy Lite. PF was intended to be accessible to the layperson, and I take that seriously. Go do Policy if you want to use jargon, run plans or kritiks, or spread. If I hear a plan text, it's likely that I'll be signing my ballot right there and then.

In order to earn the ballot from me, focus on making clear, well-articulated arguments that have appropriate supporting evidence. Remember to tell me why I should prefer your evidence/points over your opponent's. Make sure your advocacy is continually supported through the round, and give me a good summary at the end to show why you've won.

WORLDS DEBATE

Traditional Worlds adjudication; please remember which format you're competing in. Do not spread. I voted down a team in Triple Octafinals at 2018 Nationals for it.

I've done Public Forum before so it is fine to speak quickly. I will flow the debate but I would like teams to keep track of time. Please be respectful during crossfire.

Hello friends,

I'm Hannah; I used to do PF for Interlake and am now a 26 at Dartmouth. Please set up an email chain for round documents, my email is hwhuang04@gmail.com.

LD

I have never ever competed in LD. I'll try my best to evaluate everything, but I also haven't debated in a while and am a normal college student at this point... I <3 topical arguments and will probably evaluate them in a way that everyone will be happier about

PF

I evaluate debates as tab as I can, but deep down I do like truthy arguments that make sense. If I dont understand something, I feel cosmically compelled to evaluate other things before it

I liked debating and I like watching people debate. Whether I like judging is another question contingent on some of the things below

Things I like:

• Decelerating rounds: faster case and rebuttal, slower summary and final focus (PLEASE COLLAPSE EFFICIENTLY)
• Clash: collapsing on a common issue on both sides makes the debate more interesting, easier to evaluate, and easier for me to make a decision that everyone is happy with (this can also be done thru comparative weighing)
• Frontlining in the next speech: this should be going on as soon as 2nd rebuttal
• Complete extensions: this goes for offense and defense - no sticky defense
• Warrants/analysis that go beyond "author said so"
• Implicated turns: please weigh turns that aren't direct link turns
• Content warnings with opt outs
• ROB analysis: I like progressive arguments which tell me WHY i should deviate from more traditional judging and what role the judge should take in the round
• Cool, intuitive arguments

Things i dislike:

• New in the 2: I WILL NOT evaluate anything not in summary
• New implicative weighing in ff: it's basically a new argument
• Frivolous theory, please don't waste my time
• Bad spreading
• Bad evidence
• Debaters that don't look at their timers
• Racists/sexists/etc

I'll disclose whenever I can. Feel free to ask questions about my decision if the tournament isn't running behind

she/her

1st yr out

my experience:

-pf all of hs (first speaker)

-ranked in top 10

-nats 2x

-toc g+s.

for round:

-assume i have minimal topic knowledge + provide context if u feel it's prudent

-WEIGH. i hated weighing intervention when i debated, but now seeing the round from the other side of the table, i see that it's needed if u don't provide any analysis + mechs.

-idrc ab collapsing

- <3 short OTRs

-time yourselves

-PF fast is chill, no spreading

-extend relevant warrants/cards through at least sum

-any fw/fw clash needs thorough warranting

-i only have PF exposure, careful with Ks, theory, whatever, but i can try

- don't say anything overall hateful or discriminatory, i'll drop you.

evidence:

-if you take too long to find a card, i'll start running your prep.

-oppressive powertagging = card dismissal

speaks:

-i will dock for general misconduct.

- ++ speaks for any mad theory (mutually assured destruction) jokes (when applicable)

START ON TIME AND MINIMIZE DEAD TIME

Intro

Hello! I'm Jessica. You can call me by Jessica, Jess. I use she/her or they/them pronouns.

Interlake '22

U of Michigan '26

Feel free to ask questions after my decision, email me later for cards/questions, and have fun!

Please set up an email chain for round documents. My email is jessicaqiandebate@gmail.com. For HS Varsity debates, please also put interlakescouting@googlegroups.com on the chain.

Debate Stuff

T/L

All complete arguments have a claim, warrant, and impact. Things you say are true if your opponent drops them, but they only matter if they consist of a complete argument.

Specificity is good.

Aff

As a 2N, I dislike impact spamming and weak internal links.

Please don't dump a pile of generic framing cards.

1ACs with poor evidence quality make me very sad.

T

Could go either way, only thought is that limits for the sake of limits bad.

Impact out critiques of evidence quality, why does the author quals or context of the card matter?

DAs

I'm looking for a coherent, sensible story. That usually involves aff-specific links (can be cards or spin).

CPs

I love aff-specific counterplans and good perm does/doesn't shield the link arguments.

Intrinsicness good/bad debates usually go over my head. I'd rather the aff just go for a smart perm and argue that it isn't intrinsic.

Framework

If your aff strategy relies heavily on "debate shapes our subjectivities", I am not a good judge for you.

Non-arbitrary counter-interpretation > impact turning fairness

However, for the neg, don't assume fairness is automatically an impact.

2ARs and 2NRs, make sure you have a clear impact or impacts!

Ks

Aff specific links do way better in front of me than one you could read for every aff.

The alt is not always necessary, you can go for framework as uniqueness but be strategic about it.

I'm skeptical of sweeping, ontological theories of how the world operates.

Theory

Things that are probably legit: condo, agent CPs, PICs

Things that are probably not legit: consult, delay, multi-actor fiat

Speaks

My average speaks range from 28.2 to 29.4.

What to do for good speaks:

• Reading high quality evidence
• Organization and structure
• Great impact calc
• Turns case above the impact level (i.e. DA link turns case)
• Good impact turn debating by either side
• Winning based off a bold strategic moves
• Going for aff specific strategy vs a k-aff

What to do for bad speaks:

• Accidentally referencing the wrong topic because you haven't changed your blocks
• Unprovoked rudeness
• Reading giant and generic overviews

I am primarily a communications judge and vote based on the debater's overall argumentation and persuasiveness. Be aware that I have an auditory processing disorder that makes it difficult or impossible to understand speech that is significantly faster than conversational speed. If requested, I am happy to let the speaker know when they are going too fast through a hand gesture.

Stock issues rule!

Be organized, be nice, represent your school well :D

email: mckenzielwebb1@gmail.com