I have 2 years of experience in LD and 2 years of experience in Policy. I went to Millard South High School.

I ran mostly traditional arguments in high school so if you run high theory debates I fully support it I just need you to really explain your link to the resolution and/or the affirmative and explain your alternative really well.

I don't always remember to time so please remember to time yourselves.

Email: emmagsorrell@gmail.com

Add me to the email chains just because I like to read the unhighlighted portions of cards.

If I hear the same case ran multiple times with pre-fiat education claims I find it pretty unpersuasive.

I also love analytical arguments. I love analytics, it makes me think that y'all are doing the debating in your own head and thinking for yourselves and not just reading cards.

Policy

Affirmative

If you are running a K affirmative, you should still be spending almost all of your 2AC on case. Listening to a critical affirmative is one thing but being able to explain your alternative, link to the resolution and why your pre-fiat impacts have solvency is extremely important to me. Because of this, I find myself skewed against K affirmatives because I have a pretty high solvency threshold. Know your case an explain to me why I vote on it, or else I will vote Negative on presumption.

I like affirmative cases. I'm pretty even Steven on condo arguments, I think if the negative is making contradictory arguments I would buy condo bad a lot more, but at the end of the day it's all up to interpretations.

I find myself liking generic links bad arguments. I find it persuasive to me if the affirmative says "the negative cannot prove how the affirmative specifically triggers X."

I like permutation arguments to be materialized. If the affirmative can specifically show a world with direct interaction between their plantext and the alternative I will almost always vote for the permutation.

Negative

If you are running a K, explain your alternative. I see way too many teams barely talk about their alternative because they argue the links too hard. I will not buy an empty K shell. Tell me what your K does and how your alternative functions/solves.

I love PICs. Literally if you run a case-specific PIC I will probably vote for you.

I read the entirety cards, if the affirmative has bad evidence and negative lets them get away with it, I will be mad and point it out in my notes.

I will probably not vote negative if you have no on-case evidence. You have proved that the affirmative is fulfilling their burden so why should I ignore their entire case with full solvency for a K with a grassroots movements DA. I probably will not buy it unless you are an off-case god.

If you rely on a K or a CP for all of your solvency I am super against flowing this affirmative, that being said I will if it feels necessary. Don't screw up the perm work, that should be the argument you prep out the most on a K/CP. (Hence why I love PICs)

Please include me in your email chains: jthilges24@dowlingcatholic.org

Hello! I am a varsity LD debater at Dowling Catholic, and if you are reading this it is probably because I am judging your novice LD round. The number one thing I care about is that you respect your opponent. If you are winning and trying to rub it in your opponents face, I am going to dock you speaker points. I expect both debaters to be civil; at the end of the day debate is just a game.

Obviously, I will try to be completely unbiased, but this is real life and that is impossible. I prefer it if well developed framework arguments and I don't like tricks. I will still vote for you if you do win off a trick, but that doesn't mean I am going to like it. The same thing goes for clearly frivolous theory args.

Hi, I'm a parent judge. I've been judging for a long time with a lot of debates over time, but don't consider me a highly skilled varsity debate judge. I really prefer novice debates and slower, clear speakers. I am very good at keeping an open mind and a blank slate, so tell me how to vote, carefully follow the flow and we should do just fine. Thank you!

Speech must be clear and understandable if reading quickly. I appreciate when rounds stay topical however I am open to theory as well as other types of arguments.

Name: Sarah Woodward

Email: skwoodward314@gmail.com (please include me in the chain)

I debated LD for Ankeny High School from 2008 to 2011. I judged intermittently through college but have been absent from the activity for the last ~8 years. My background is in engineering and project management -- I prefer logic and substantive argumentation.

Please no lingo. I can probably handle 75% of your fastest speed. I generally don't care what you run as long as you are clear.