Hey there, I'm Meghan (she/her) and I'm happy to be your judge for the round! I like to remain as unbiased as possible, as debate rounds don't necessarily convey your personal beliefs. However, if you end up arguing something harmful, discriminatory, or very morally wrong, I will not vote for you (and your behavior will be reflected in your speaks). Speech & Debate is a safe, educational space and we do not want to ruin that by being hateful. Please feel free to ask me any questions before the round begins, and I will be happy to answer. :)

Here's my email, please add me to the chain: mncrohe@gmail.com

Experience: My main event is policy, but I have dabbled in LD and PF among other supplemental events and a few speech events.

Policy

Things to Note

-Tech over truth--if someone argues something that I don't necessarily agree with (like global warming isn't real) and you drop the argument I have no choice but to prefer your opponent's claims

-Spreading: I believe debate should provide training for good public communication. It is essential that I am able to understand your arguments and your supporting evidence. I will make a commitment to listen carefully, but I expect you to make a commitment to speak clearly

-CP: Counterplans can provide a reason to vote negative so long as they are competitive (meaning they give a reason to reject the affirmative policy). If the aff perms and you don't have a good response then ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

-T: Topicality is an independent voting issue. If you're an aff, don't run RVI, or theory that T is a time suck (if your case is truly topical you can defend it). I will vote on topicality whenever the negative team can show that the affirmative plan fails to follow the terms of the resolution.

-K: I will try to keep an open mind about any argument which makes sense. I have participated in K debate, and too many debaters simply use K buzzwords to scare their opponents without explaining how the K actually functions. If you decide to run a K, tell me about what the alt world will look like PLEASE.

-Theory: You should still have on-case defense and should attack your opponent's arguments. Provide a clear interp, violation, standards, and voters, or I will not consider it a voting issue. Theory was created to make debate fair against abusive debaters, so if you use it in an abusive manner, I will not consider it.

-10 off? No. Don't gish gallop.

-Disclosure theory? Cheap tactic. If you claim you should win the debate over a Wiki dispute, consider my ballot lost. Do NOT make assumptions about your opponents' knowledge and experience.

Things I Like:

-Signposting

-Providing voting issues (impact calculus, weighing the round, whatever you like to call it)

-Line-by-line responses

-Asking thought-provoking questions during CX, or questions with the intent of referring back to them in your speeches

-On Aff, taking some time to explain your plan, how it's incorporated, the outcome, or what the world will look like

-Analytics in the docs are helpful because online connection can be pretty bad and I don't want to miss anything important!

Things I Dislike:

-Lying about your opponent(s) dropping arguments

-Being rude and/or aggressive in CX

-Running condo badly, like running a Cap K during the neg block, kicking a CP too early/late, or just ignoring your disads

-Cold-dropping arguments

-Rebuttals that are almost strictly a regurgitation of the previous speeches

-Only running theory/off-case args and ignoring on-case args ://

-Cutting cards in the middle of speaking (please have them prepped before the round and ensure you have enough time to say what you want to say, or send them before the next cross begins)

-I don't like K Affs :( but I can vote on them

Lincoln-Douglas

Things to Note:

-Even if I am a CX debater, LD should be trad LD. No CPs unless it is allowed in the circuit

-I don't like spreading in LD, unless you share the case with me and your opponent

Things I Like:

-Definitive framework debate--I don't want to have to decide who's the winning framework, I want to know by the end of the round

-Solid claim/data/warrant/impact link chain

Things I Dislike:

-Terrible linking

-Not accessing impacts or contentions

-Only sticking to the framework debate

-Ignoring the framework debate (find a happy medium)

-A million contentions

-Too much analytics, too little evidence

Public Forum

Things I Like:

-Quality over quantity

-Having clear claim, evidence, and warrant

-Clear voting issues

Things I Don't Like

-Being aggressive rather than assertive during crossfire (we may be here to argue, but it should be civil!)

-Spreading (come on, it's PF, not Policy)

-Purely definition debates

TLDR; be respectful, have sound arguments, and speak loudly and clearly. Other than that, we're all here to have fun and learn something, and I do love good jokes and puns!

Most of my experience is in Policy and LD, however, I do have experience in PF, parli, extemp debate, and World Schools.

General preferences:

I can handle speed, but if you're going to spread then I would like to see an email chain (mikeythird8@gmail.com).

I will keep time and encourage you to as well. This means in round you should sound off when you start your speech or prep time so I can make sure my time is accurate. I would prefer if you keep track of your own prep time, but I'll keep track of that as well. While I think it's important for you as a debater to keep time, judge time is the only true time.

A major pet peeve I have is when debaters simply repeat their arguments to defend them instead of actually refuting the response to their argument. Repetition is not refutation, nor will I count it as such.

Do not be rude, condescending, etc. Your speaks will not look good by the end of the round.

TL;DR - I will vote on any argument, I lean traditional (in policy I prefer stock issues), and try and have a good round and stay away from gish galloping and cheap args.

For PF:

I've never found preferences to be super useful in PF beyond what I have already gone over in general so this section is gonna be a bit sparse. The only thing that comes to mind is the importance of weighing. I'm not gonna weigh the round unless both teams fail to do so, otherwise I'm most likely going to default to which ever team does weigh. In terms of weighing, I will default to a util framework unless told otherwise. I'll vote on anything but I would keep it simple, it is only PF.

For LD:

The biggest thing I want to see in any LD round is a definitive framework debate. I don't want to chose a framework by the end of the round, I want one to be the clear winner. In terms of knowledge base, I'm not the most well educated in moral philosophy, but I do know a decent amount. Just make sure your framework is clearly explained and don't just rely on my ability to decipher your cards. Beyond that my only other comment for LD would be that I am personally a trad debater. Being as I have pretty extensive policy experience, I can handle prog LD, but I don't really like it and I'm going to be more open to trad arguments. In my opinion, LD does not have the time structure to support progressive arguments and I think that moral philosophy debate is good in itself. Extend any of my applicable preferences on policy to prog LD.

For CX:

This is where most paradigms get long, but I am going to try and keep it on the shorter side.

For some general notes, I am a flow judge, but I would still like to see well labeled speech docs. For neg that means actual titles for your off instead of just numbers and for aff that means clear indications of different sections (adv 1, adv 2, solvency, etc.). This isn't a voter by any means but it may help your speaks and at the very least it will make the round easier to follow.

Tech > Truth; Quality > Quantity

I will only vote on what is said in round, my opinions will not be inserted. However, I do not like the strategy of pitching 5 off and a 4 pages of case cards at a team and seeing what they drop. This kind of debate will not work well to convince me to vote for you, and at the very least your speaks will take a severe hit.

T/Theory

My opinions on theory are few, but my opinions on T are many. In terms of theory, I have rarely seen theory args I think are valid complaints, but I'll vote for anything. Although I personally dislike disclosure theory a lot, mainly because it is a cheap argument and often is just used for no valid reason, I will still vote on it if not contested because I have to, don't make me vote on disclosure theory. On T, I personally spend a lot of time debating T and It's probably one of my strongest arguments so I am kind of a stickler for it. I want well written interps with clear standards and voters. I want counter interps that make sense and standards for them that are clear. I will default to competing interp and drop the debater unless told otherwise. My biggest thing for both T and theory is that it is a major argument for the round and the amount of time you dedicate to it and where you put in the order do matter. Those factors help me, as the judge, determine if you're simply running another off or if it's an actual complaint on the other team and if it actually means something to you. One final note on either T or Theory is that it shouldn't look like it got cobbled together last second, even though it probably was. Take the time to edit it and make it coherent.

CPs

These are pretty run of the mill. There's not much to say beyond the fact that I would prefer if you write out the full plan text for Agent or Process CPs instead of just saying "do the plan" in parenthesis. Also make sure you actually write out a plan text for States CP, I found that sometimes people don't because it's so well known, but I would accept not having a plan text as a valid reason to drop the argument. States CP's are pretty standard, but the wording of the plantext, even for a States CP can be a vital factor in debates. There are a couple of different theory args that can be run on CPs, so see above for any details about those. When it comes to Perms, I have no real prefs.

DAs

Pretty basic stuff, UQ and Brink cards need to be recent, I won't throw out the DA on that if your opponent does not call it out, but It's a very valid argument in my mind. That being said, the aff should explain what has changed in the world to call a UQ or Brink card invalid, unless it is more than a year old. I could accept generic link cards if the aff does not give a valid reason why they should not apply or if the neg can comprehensively explain why they do apply.

Ks

I'm not much of a k debater, I'm open to anything but I'm not familiar with the topic lit or most k lit. I do not like K affs, but if they are clear enough and not contested well I would vote for them, just know I'd prolly be very open to anti- K aff arguments.

Ask any questions you have about my paradigm or preferences before the round starts.