Hello debaters

I am lay parent judge for 2 years. Speak clearly and make strong arguments. Always respect your opponents.

I take notes.Don't speak to fast.

I've judged a couple tournaments.Given 29s and 30s.

Have Fun

Hi, I'm Anika and I competed and graduated from American Heritage Broward in 2021. Please add me to the email chain: anikadham@ufl.edu.

I have not done anything debate related in over a year so please do not spread at full speed especially with online formatting go extra slow! I can and will flow, but I can't flow stuff that I don't hear or is just really fast mumbling.

As a debater, I primarily read phil and theory which is probably the content I am most familiar with but that does not mean you should feel restricted to those categories. I don't really care what you read as long as it's not offensive, makes an argument, and you can defend it. That being said, if you are a senior with a few bids and years under your belt, please do not be a show off against a novice or someone obviously new to the activity and go 8 off against a lay aff. Debate is supposed to be fun and educational so make sure you can provide that experience to younger students.

CX is a great way to show your personality and be clever and get good speaks. That being said if you are unnecessarily rude or purposefully unengaging I will dock your speaks.

Things that you should do that make it easier for me to do my job correctly:

weigh & collapse !!!!!!!!!

give organized speeches with a clear roadmap that I can follow

record your speeches just in case there is an internet issue and I miss half the things you say

If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask me before the round starts.

New account, New Paradigm.

If you want to see what I've done previously you can view my record here: Judging Record

History
Former Director of Debate at the University of Central Florida (2018-2021)

Current: Director of Operations for the Disc Golf Pro Tour

Experience

I have coached policy, LD, PF, Parli, IPDA, and some speech events. Generally, in policy formats we leaned towards critical cases. However, I was coached from the beginning to run cases straight up and can appreciate plan planks and disads.

Ways to lose speaker points

Being rude, lying, doing anything that should get you kicked out of a tournament (racist, sexist, etc).

Debate is a fun competitive research game. Ask questions if you have them.

Email: caitlynajones1@gmail.com

Pronouns: (she/her)

I have done no topic research. Assume I know nothing

I debated PF for 4 years

• If you want me to vote on it, it needs to be in the summary and the final focus

• Please don’t just yell cards at me. Some analysis please

• If there’s an evidence misconduct problem, I’d rather you point out the issues with your opponent’s interpretation of evidence during your speeches, but I’ll call for a card if you tell me to.

• Any concessions in cross need to be in a speech for me to flow it

• Don't Spread at me. If I need a case doc to follow you, it's too fast.

• I'm not flowing anything after the 10-second grace period

I judge mostly based on what's on my flow, so good organization is key to winning with me. I will not try to put pieces together in arguments. I also appreciate roadmaps so I can know what I will be Flowing

Signposting is good, fully fleshing out an argument before moving on is good, being all over the place is a sure way to make me miss something. Tying several arguments together to a single theme is good and gives your team a strong base upon which I can judge, but make that connection known, don't expect me to tie your loose ends for you, that's a sure way to an L.

Please make sure to flesh out your arguments, if you don't give me a reason that an argument is true (whether by using facts or theory), I won't judge it. I will judge on the factors that I feel best suited that round.

Misrepresenting your opposition's arguments may be good enough to win you the debate (if they don't call you out on it), but it sure won't win you any speaker points. While we are on the topic of misrepresenting, no card clipping, heavy penalties will apply.

Towards the end of your 2AR/2NR speech, make sure to close off the debate and tell me why you think you should win, tell me what you want me to vote on and why.

Although evidence is expected, don't hide solely behind it, give me reasoning as to why your position is better than your opposition.

I am not a fan of spreading . It is something I try to let all debaters know I will not drop you for it but know you run the risk of me missing something on the flow .

I do not have a heavy policy debate background, The easier you make things for me to understand the better and more likely you are to win my ballot. I try my hardest to be a fair judge and remember as a judge with very little policy experience the easier you make my job and thoroughly explain your arguments and tell me what i should and shouldn't vote out and also IMPACTS !!!! IMPACTS are big for me .

Experience: I'm currently a high school teacher/debate coach, but not too long ago I was debating policy in college, and before that, in high school. I have also debated LD and parliamentary extensively, and, occasionally, PF.

I often flow without a speech doc. You can only go as fast as you are clear; unfortunately, I think this is necessary to dis-incentivize the race to the bottom of debaters ejecting un-enunciated syllables out of their mouths as quickly as possible, relying on the judge to evaluate off the speech doc. This is not generally a problem in novice or JV, because these debaters are rarely fast enough, but they may still be too unclear for me to understand. I will verbally clear you up to 3 times per speech if necessary. To clarify, spreading is fine IF it is clear (most people should be fine!)

Be kind and loving. Follow basic ethics both competitively and in your interactions with others while in the debate room.
Here's the stuff you need to know, policy first then LD at the bottom:

-----

Policy Debate

K vs. Policy: I ran more K-oriented cases in college but I was policy-oriented in HS, so I have a feel for both sides. I'd like to consider myself mostly balanced, but keep reading for specific situations.

Which type of K: Do whatever. Identity/high theory/cap/biopower/etc. are all totally fine with me. I have a degree in philosophy so unless you're doing some real wacky stuff I can hopefully keep up with you.

Framework: I will evaluate it and vote on it if you're winning, but typically I'd suggest you beef up your other positions in front of me -- I think the generic Cap v K debate is substantially better for most teams, especially novices/JV, as opposed to the FW v K debate. Liberalism good is also a very good argument in front of me.

K vs policy aff: Historically I think I tend to vote more for the K when vs "hard policy" cases, i.e. cases which go for the classic magnitude-focused impacts like extinction. However, I typically favor soft-left affs (i.e. affs with a plan which go for non-extinction impacts) vs the K.

The K either needs a coherent alt to weigh against the plan OR a coherent reason why my actual, physical ballot is important. I am unlikely to buy arguments that I am somehow part of a bigger movement of scholarly refusal or have a pedagogical burden or whatever -- I'm not even in academia anymore.

Policy stuff: CPs/DAs/etc - I am typically very sympathetic to arguments that claim various generic CPs (states, XO, etc.) are anti-educational because they obscure the core civics conversation of the debate. Making me sit through a states CP debate is a precarious position for you. Basically everything else should be fine.

Theory: 80% of the time theory is a waste in front of me. Theoretical arguments for substantive claims on other flows (e.g. a K flow) are fine. Exceptions covered below.

Condo: I find myself voting on condo bad a surprising amount of the time in situations where the neg has more than one conditional position.

PIK/PICs bad: I lean toward them being bad, but that is not a hard and fast rule.

Utopian/vague alts bad: Could be, but you can't just do boring fairness/education blocks. The best theoretical objections to alts deal with the substantive political implications of their form -- i.e. there are a lot of reasons why utopianism is bad and why vague political projects are bad, you should argue those and not "i can't possibly prep for this!!"

-------------

LD:

K, LARP, and phil debaters should probably pref me highly, especially phil debaters. Tricks and traditional debaters should probably not pref me highly. Friv theory is bad, Ks need well warranted explanations & alternatives and plans should be topical under the resolution.