I want good clash, with focus on core values and criterions. I also want you guys to be respectful.

she/her || kylieberg06@gmail.com || fairview ab '24

speed is okay with me but clarity is better - don't speak faster than your opponents can understand. make debate fun and respectful, especially cross. like i sometimes zone out during cross and i'm almost never flowing but if you're being disrespectful do you wanna make an impression on me like that? in that same vein let me know in a speech if you want something from cross on the flow, cross can probably be binding if you want. i'm a veteran low point win giver and i'll tank your speaks if you're egregiously disrespectful.

please collapse - you aren't going to win every argument in a round and you don't have to; just explain which arguments you're winning and why they should win you the whole round. if you're going for every argument in the back half of a round, you will be spread very thin. the weighing debate is also important, you don't have to weigh but you probably have to if you want to win? start weighing at the beginning of the back half (or maybe even before? :)), new weighing in the last speeches is okay but not new arguments/evidence. if a round comes down to it i default to probability > magnitude on impact calc but you're welcome to convince me otherwise :) and in this vein you probably won't like my decision if you're leaving a lot of the analysis for me to do. tell me what ballot you're asking me for!

you don't need a card to make an argument. strong evidence > strong analytic >> weak evidence > weak analytic >> no response. i like good analytical debates. if you can't provide evidence that your opponents call for, i'll drop the argument. if i'm given a reason to think you're misrepresenting or lying about evidence i'll drop the debater. if you let me know at the end of the round that you think your opponents did this, tell me and i'll call the cards/make a decision. during round, i'd rather you just flash evidence than set up an email chain. the team calling the card takes prep to read it.

for october/ novice season:

Be kind to each other, its learning time. Firmly believe that the more you put in debate the more you get out of it, so show me how much you care.

for others:

speaks: Oh my god, if you spread and it sounds significantly different than how you talk, I will give you low speaks, IDC how good you are to other people or your coach I hate it. Get good speaks by making eye contact and looking like you aren't wanting to kill your opponent or teammate.

flow: If you say it, assume I flowed it. If you want to make sure, tell me that you said it, but don't assume I won't go back and look at speech docs.

cx: I don't flow this so being it up in the next speech once you get them. This is how good debates are won, and where bad debates fail, in my mind. This is the time to prove you know that your opponents are wrong, you are right, and you are way smarter than them.

1AC: Must be timed, at 8 minutes. I will give you 10 sec of grace if you need, but if every other speech goes over than you can't get above 28 speaks from me since that shows me you aren't paying attention to yourself.

1NC: Should be timed, at 8 minutes, you get 10 sec of grace if you need, but if every other speech goes over than you can't get above 28 speaks from me ect. ect. I think that having a clear plan in this speech goes a long way, the strategy here is under used.

2AC: Your only job is respond and extend, start voters if you want, I want to see that you are confident.

Neg Block: Split issues up, don't try and cover 3 things in the 1NR but do try and bring up what was said in the 2NC since you are giving voters, hopefully.

1AR: Make it easy for your 2A, hit everything they want you to hit, and go over the flow if you have extra time, don't make it less than 4:45.

2NR: Do not drop anything, that makes me so sad :(. Going in to this speech you should know if you won or lost, and never, ever make it seem like you lost.

2AR: Lie, cheat and don't let me know you are. Go all in, its the last one, blow everything out of proportion if necessary.

I primarily do policy debate so I am okay with speed and many different types of arguments. As long as there is good signposting and I can follow along well, most things are permissible. I like in-depth clash over simply resorting back to talking points and generic cards, and I think good analysis is key to a win. 

It's fine to run non-traditional arguments as long as they are well thought out, and I dislike it when a fundamental understanding of the core topic hasn't been demonstrated. 

In terms of framework, I am fine with anything.

No spreading, no k's - I'm a pretty traditional lay judge.

I also don't read cases you flash me. If you can't say it in a way I can understand, it just won't count.

I did debate for 4 years in high school, mostly LD with a splash of PF. I also did extemp and OO. I'm now studying economics and political science and compete in British Parli with my university.

A few general basics for debate...

Be civil and kind, and please be aware of what power dynamics exist in the room. You will not win the round by bullying your opponent into submission, and if I think you're being a jerk you will probably be unhappy with your speaks.

Speed: don't spread, but talking fast is fine. I'm not going to refer to a document that you send unless I need to review specific evidence, so while I can listen and type fast if it doesn't make it onto my flow it doesn't count.

Signpost please - if you don't tell me where something goes on the flow, there is a good chance it does not make it onto my flow, which will be sad for you.

In general tech >> truth, however, if you read me something that is very blatantly false I'm going to have a very hard time voting on it. The more outlandish your argument is the more well-substantiated it needs to be through solid evidence.

Evidence ethics matter. If you are not able to provide exactly what you are citing in a quick and efficient manner, it will be bad for you. Additionally, if you read me something that sounds super sketchy, if the argument is going to impact my vote then I will call for your card at the end. If I don't feel like your card backs you up I won't consider the argument.

Don't be abusive. I'm flowing and listening to your arguments and your opponent's arguments. If you tell me your opponent dropped something they didn't, misconstrue your opponent, or more generally lie about what has been happening in the round I will get very very annoyed with you. If you want to win the round, me being annoyed with you is not a good thing. Additionally, if you refuse to interact with the arguments your opponent is making, you probably won't win.

Finally, the more you impact and weigh, the easier it is for me to vote for you. Ultimately, you should be presenting an easy-to-follow narrative that convinces me you're right. If I have to weigh arguments myself you might not like how I do it.

LD Specifics:

I love Framework debate, and I think that it can be really important to the round... but only if you do it well. The winning framework is what I'm going to use to evaluate the impacts, so if you're going to spend time on the framework debate, your framework should matter in evaluating your impacts. If your framework is functionally the same as your opponents, save everyone's time and tell me that instead of trying to explain why the word you chose is better than the word they chose.

PF Specifics:

Not much that is specific to PF and isn't covered above. The only thing that I would say is please make sure that you and your partner are presenting the same narrative. The more you and your partner are on the same page the better it is for you. Additionally, I think a lot of circuit debate turns into a card dumping competition which I think is a mindless waste of time. Quality of cards and argumentation matter way more to me than quantity.

Speech/Interp:

I don't have strong preferences or thoughts... just speak well and try to be engaging.

• Include voters at the end of your final speech. This is to remind me what you think your strongest points were in the round, or for me to see your side of the argument from a lens of your choosing.
• Signposting attacks and logically attacking your opponent's case is the easiest way for me (or any judge) to easily flow your arguments. If you don't include a signpost, I may not flow your attack.
• Core Value/Value Criterion Clash should be at the center of your arguments, as the point of LD is to argue for a value system that is superior to your opponent's.

I judge very heavily on etiquette, your behavior in round will influence my decision, if you are rude I will drop your speaks and vote you down with no questions asked.

Other than that, I vote on impacts and clear, well-stated arguments. If you have a creative refutation or can flip your opponent's points, I will take notice of that. I am happy to flow non-conventional arguments, but you have to support them validly.

email chain (I will probably not open speech docs unless there is an evidence dispute): njvanlandschoot@gmail.com

First and foremost, I am a flow judge. This means that I will award almost any dropped argument. Tech over truth as long as the argument is at least theoretically plausible, however unlikely it may seem.

Any model of debate is fine, and I will vote on any type of argument, including theory or ROTB that contradicts this.

I care more about substance than presentation. For PF I may take presentation into account if there is a major difference between the two teams, but in general you do not need to worry about this with me.

I will not factor the qualifications of a card into my decision unless told to do so. That being said, a good analytic is still better than a bad, or even worse, irrelevant card.

In reality, I do not care about disclosure, and I believe that prep time is enough. That being said, if someone reads a good argument on disclosure, I will still vote on it.

In CX I am fine with speed.

Don’t steal prep on purpose (I also do not intervene in almost any situation, so still be sure to call out your opponent).

I will disclose if I am allowed to.

I compete in PF but have judged LD in the past

I give 15 seconds of grace

Paradigms:

• be respectful
• reference sources when refuting cards
• make sure to refute every point
• use personal timers but my times are final
• make sure to signpost (let me know where you are in your speeches, ex: In response to my opponents C1)

As a judge, I look for respectful behavior. If you are disrespectful to your opponents, it will be reflected in the scoring. Make sure you have evidence for your arguments. 

You are not required to signpost, but it will make it much easier to follow your case.