Spoiler alerts

Pronouns: Call me whatever you want but I have always gone by John Henry (he/him/his)

I have a nerve condition that can make it hard to listen to debating that is exceptionally fast-paced (>350 WPM), high-pitched (>350 Hz), or loud (>78 dB). Please do not take this personally, but if you plan to exceed any of these ranges at any point in the debate at least let me know in advance.

If your opponent is being problematic plz call them out I have a bad habit of not realizing these things until they're out of hand.

Do you know me?

WB Ray 2015-2018

Tuloso Midway 2018-2019

Washington & Lee c/o 2023 #change the name

I have been debating since 2013. Although I have done every form of debate under the sun I would say my areas of expertise are Policy, LD, Big Questions, and PF (in that order) although I'm sure I could get by in any debate format. I qualified to TFA and UIL State every year of high school (2016-2018 in policy, 2019 in LD) I have debated on local, state, and national circuits and I won NSDA Big Questions my senior year.

Put me on the email chain: stearnsj23@mail.wlu.edu

TL:DR

Do what you love

Love what you do

If you're having fun

I probably am too

Quick Prefs (LD)

K - 1 (anything from PoMo goo to Cap to Interpretive Dance)

Policy/"LARP" - 1 (hard right or soft left)

Traditional - 1 (here for it)

Phil - 1/2 (would love to see more of these)

T - 2 (good T debate is a 1, bad T debate is a 3)

Theory - 2/3 (a dropped arg = a dropped arg but an unwarranted argument ≠ an argument)

Tricks - 3/4 (see Theory)

Quick Prefs (Policy)

K - 1

Policy - 1

Stock Issues - 1

Aff specific strats - 1

PTX - 1/2

Topic DAs - 2

Framework - 2 (I don't like these debates but they are valuable and I could be persuaded either way)

T (not framework) - 2

Theory - 2 (a dropped arg = a dropped arg BUT an unwarranted argument ≠ an argument)

Things I don't understand - 4/strike

***Full paradigm***

K

Surveillance topic I read an internet freedom aff, China topic I read space, Education topic I read an emotional intelligence policy aff and Queer X-Men Magical Realism, senior year I competed in LD and read a combination of Heg good, the USfg is a fascist state, and disability performance. What does this mean for you? I don't know.

I typically divide Ks into four sections (all of which are arbitrary personal preferences) 1) structural 2) post-structural 3) performance & 4) other

1) Structural Kritiks: Who doesn't love a good cap debate? Eat the rich? Sure. Is cap key to space col? Maybe. Nothing here is a given. Antiblackness can be a structural or more identity-oriented argument. Please make it clear which route you intend to pursue and stick to it. Most alts don't solve their own impacts, but nobody said they have to. I ran anthro once but it was actually just Agamben so I'd like to see more of this

2) Post-Structural Kritiks: You hawaiian shirt and chino pants wearing buffoon. Nietzsche is logical but unappealing, Baudrillard & Co. are cool but you have more explaining to do. I have a soft spot for Biopower authors, but I still don't know what the alt does / how it solves the impacts. I feel like everything I learn about Deleuze makes me know less. Schopenhauer, Heidegger, Psychoanalysis are topics I probably would have read/debated more if I understood better.

3) Performance Kritiks: Junior year I read an X-Men queer performance aff and senior year I wrote and read disability poetry in rounds so I love this kind of debate. Do this if you are passionate about performance. Avoid this if you're just doing it to get some dubs. If your arguments get extra textual make sure to spell out what that means and why I can/should vote on it. I don't know if spillover is real or not. Poems are can be arguments. FYI I find these arguments more persuasive when you don't spread but if you want to let it rip, go for it.

4) Other Kritiks: Ks of debate, Buddhism, or like Ks of your opponent's performance all fall into this category. Feel free to run these. I do not understand them well, so please do a lot of explaining.

Role of the Ballot: I mean I guess, but if it's super arbitrary it will only make my vote more confusing

Presumption: Does it flip neg? I don't know. Convince me.

"ThE aLt Is ThE SqUo": Debaters often use this phrase. If it is, then why did you read a card on it? I think I know what the status quo looks like already.

Things always seemed to work out for me when I explained my alternatives as if my judge had never heard of debate before. This doesn't mean you have to, but it seems to help. LESS = MORE

Framework

SLOW DOWN. I view Framework much in the same way that I view Eminem's Rapping. Sometimes it's really good, in fact some of the best ever. Sometimes it's really bad and makes me want to tear out my ears. I can tell good Eminem from bad Eminem, but I never enjoy listening to it.

Policy Affs

Big stick affs are cool. One advantage affs are cool. IR theory affs are cool. Small affs are cool. Non-topical policy affs are not cool. If I don't know what your aff does I will have a hard time voting for it. Please slow down on plan texts.

Soft Left affs: If you spend 5 minutes of the 1AC explaining what extinction doesn't matter please provide me a metric to weigh other impacts.

On Case Neg Args

yes yes yes and yes

Internal link work: underrated

Impact D: honestly my favorite argument in debate

Impact turns: these debates are so fun [unless they're against soft left affs :( ]

DAs

There is such thing as zero percent risk. If you make eye contact with me for more than 3 seconds during these debates you will probably be able to tell whether or not I'm buying your argument. If you're aff, please read offense on these pages.

PTX: I don't think you can perm the DA. Prove me wrong. I don't care if the line item already passed, I care if your opponent knows that.

Turns Case: Read it. This usually has a HUGE impact on the round.

CPs

Counterplans are great.

PICs: I would prefer if it was plan specific, but wouldn't we all. They might be bad, let me know if they are.

Advantage CPs: My second favorite argument. If you have enough of these that are well researched and have fleshed out net benefits you can answer any aff no matter how small. Extra spice points if you impact turn the other advantage(s). If you have a reason these are bad please let me know

Word PIKs: Alright i guess, but the more nitpicky the argument, the less persuasive it will be.

Multiplank CPs: Probably fine if the planks aren't conditional. Probably problematic if they are. If you have a love or fear of multiplank counterplans ask me about "the condo trick" after the round

Judge Kick: I'll default to sticking you with the counterplan but if you tell me to judge kick and win the arg I'm down

T (not Framework)

Good T debates are good. Bad T debates are bad. Debaters often overlook the importance of the difference between topicality as what the topic means and topicality as what the topic should be (to be clear I am not partial to either of these interpretations).

Impacts: I always sucked at T debates because I have a hard time concisely describing why they are actually important. Don't be me.

Competing interps vs. Reasonability: Competing interps is probably true, but I really don't like what it does for debate. Exploit my biases accordingly.

T is an RVI: I can not imagine myself voting for this argument but it's a time suck I guess.

Theory / Tricks

I like theory arguments like conditional Ks bad or 14 off is an unethical strategy. I do not like theory arguments like must spec the status of the alternative in one off debates during the 1NC. If in round abuse has actually occurred please read theory, if it has not please avoid hedging your bets on it

Impacts: I always sucked at theory debates because I have a hard time concisely describing why they are actually important. Don't be me.

Competing interps vs. Reasonability: Competing interps is probably true, but I really don't like what it does for debate. Exploit my biases accordingly.

Drop the Team vs Drop the arg: my default is case-specific but please don't make me revert to it

Theory is an RVI: I am partial to the idea that theory is an RVI if in-round abuse has occurred from the use of theory. Otherwise, this argument makes very little sense in Policy but a little bit more in LD.

Phil

Being a philosophy major I love this stuff but like slow down. I would love to hear your analytic Post-Keirkegaardian anti-furry weeaboo slime but if it justifies racism it's probably bad.

Speaker Points

*modified from Ali Abdulla's page, will update as I continue to judge*

Will modify for tournament quality/size. My speaker point scale is:

<27 - you probably did something offensive

27-27.4 - You made good arguments but never explained why they matter

27.5-27.9 - You had a coherent strategy in this round but it was not executed effectively

28-28.2 - Expect you to be solidly in the 2-4 bracket. Probably a newer team who has some stuff figured out but isn't quite there yet.

28.3-28.4 - Expect you to break even. All the pieces were there but you were lacking a higher degree of argument interaction.

28.5-28.6 - Expect you to go 3-3 or 4-2 and be on the verge of breaking. Good arguments, but you made some broader strategic missteps.

28.7-28.9 - I expect you to break/clear. I liked your well thought out strategy but still need to work on implementing that strategy and you made some great arguments but could have made the debate clearer, more organized or more nuanced.

29-29.4 - You were great and on the threshold of being amazing. You had a well thought out and implemented strategy and great arguments but were somewhat lacking in some form. I expect you to be in later elims.

29.5-29.9 - You were amazing. I expect you to be the top speaker at this tournament and most likely win the tournament or at least make it into deep elims. Any problem I found in your speeches was probably nit-picking.

30 - You have cured my depression.

Hello my name is Kim Light-Womack.

I am an experienced speech and debate judge. I have both competed and judged for many years. I specifically competed in CX debate in both high school and college with multiple trips to state and nationals. I did crossover events in speech including informative, persuasive, and extemporaneous along with the occasional drama event.

My philosophy in debate is to not only to communicate but track your arguments consistently across the round. I will take notes and spread when applicable. Don’t get rattled if I make a lot of notes, it is just my style of judging.

Please have fun and always be respectful to your opponents, audience, and judges.