Background-

I did basically all events in high school and am comfortable and experienced judging everything. In college I debated parli for 4 years at Texas Tech University and was very nationally competitive by the end of my career. I have been coaching for 15ish years and judging for even longer than that.

1)DEBATE (LD, CX)

2)PLATFORMS (I include Congress here)

3)INTERP/ACTING

DEBATE:

What I vote on-

I default Netben unless told otherwise. Impacts and solvency are the best things to convince me to give you my ballot. Be civil or be tanked on speaks.

LD-

I don't mind hearing policy style or critical arguments, but you still need to engage with opponents that use Value and Criterion. You can't just format your opponents out of the round. For me, it is all about the line by line and how you structure your framework. The easiest thing for me to vote on are solvency and impacts. I will listen to theory, but there needs to be clear abuse. I am probably not the guy to run super experimental or out there arguments with. I don't mind hear critical stuff, but it is very easy for me to attach myself to arguments that simply say your K has no impact, perm do both, or just reading theory. I would say K's are not my strong suit, but I'll listen to them.

CX-

I used to say I was good with everything, but in my old age, some of the performative arguments lost me. Run whatever you want in front of me, I don't want to restrict your arguments, but know that if I can't see a practical application for your performance or I just see it as a way to subvert the topic and avoid links, I will probably vote against you. I have a super low tolerance for saying "theory is oppressive" or "topicality is elitist." I just think that it is a little lazy and an attempt to be nonexclusive in your movements/philosophies. That being said, I won't interfere with the round, the other team has to run the T or prove the abuse, but I will definitely be listening for those arguments and would welcome them.

Speed-

I'm ok with decent speed. Especially if I have a doc share before the speech starts. Don't blow my doors off with speed though, I am getting older and really need the pen time. I will not let a team spread a non-speed team out. I am only ok with speed if both sides are cool with it. I will say, non-speed readers, that there is a difference between spreading and speaking quickly. Don't rely on saying "they are going too fast for me."

K-

Don't name drop and assume I know what your talking about. I expect links, solvency and impacts just like any other argument. Also read my opening paragraph under "CX" about performances and non-topical/critical affs.

T-

Need to prove abuse, don't just say it is unfair.

CP/DA-

Absolutely my favorite thing to listen to in debate.

PLATFORM EVENTS:

Information and argumentation are so much more important to me than speaking ability. Extempers should answer the question with evidence and be specific. Oratory and Info kids should have loads of evidence/research and they should be able to have a good and clear position or thesis. If everyone's info is good in the round or your speaking is just so disorganized, then yes, my tie breaker is typically who spoke the best. However, know that a few "ums" and "uhs" don't write you off of my ballot. A lack of info or argumentation will.

INTERP/ACTING EVENTS:

In these events, I am looking for a few things. Purposeful movements and voices is first. I don't like ad-libbing movements or voices (you don't have to make one of the characters British just because it's an accent you can do). Second, energy and consistent characterization throughout the entire piece. Third, dynamic emotions and voices. Give me range on what I am supposed to feel and don't just scream the whole time. Sometimes the quiet moments are more powerful than the loud ones. Lastly, it needs to entertain me! If you aren't into your piece, I won't be either.

LD -

Yes I wanna be on the email chain :) alyssavanzandt16@gmail.com

———————————————————-———————————————————-

I’m open to every argument, but here’s what I typically lean towards…

Traditional paradigms:

I find the criterion debate more essential than the value debate and framework overall a huge voter in the round. That being said, if your contention level arguments suck, I will not vote on framework alone. You need both. Do the weighing for me in your voters. I am familiar with the most common philosophers debated, and am very encouraging of people using new philosophers.

———————————————————-———————————————————-

Progressive paradigms:

K:

love K debate. I am not familiar with all of the literature though. K Affs are fun.

CP/Plans:

I don’t have any problem with these being ran. If your plan text has the word "ought" in it, I'll cringe.

PICs:

I like these when they’re done well. If the PIC is just meant to bait theory or be goofy, I will be less open to the argument.

———————————————————-———————————————————-

Speaks:

I like to give high speaks unless you’re being rude, aggressive, or generally making the debate space feel unsafe.

I don’t mind speed, but send me your case (alyssavanzandt16@gmail.com). I will dock speaker points if you’re simply incoherent or failed to share your case with your opponent.

i will listen to any argument as long as the warrants makes sense. I tend to have a high threshold for voting on extinction scenarios, doesn’t mean I won’t, but your link chain has to be solid.
Non topical stuff needs to show me why giving you the ballot outweighs topical debates.

Not very receptive to shady theory. I want a reasonable argument indicating abusiveness.
I vote on arguments made in a voters section. These arguments must be substantiated throughout the debate. But I don’t want to intervene so it’s your job to write my RFD.

i want to be on the email chain but I find speech drop works best.

I don’t time. Time each other. Don’t be rude, keep it professional and avoid any personal attacks. Kindness will be rewarded in speaks.

if you plan on running anything different might double check before the round that I’m okay with it. I listen to most stuff. I love K debates over super policy rounds. I find debates that collapse to topicality and theory very boring, if the round necessitates such arguments I understand but I’d rather your strategy make sense to the context of the round.

Always send a marked version of the doc if you end up going off schedule and be clear when you’re reading anything not on the doc. I flow off the doc, I still want to understand you when you’re speaking so don’t abuse the fact that I flow off the dock and read so fast you’re incomprehensible.

Speaks

30-29: Expect to see you in out rounds. Amazing well thought out strategy. Clear arguments.
29-28: Few logical inconsistencies, good strategy and good overall performance.
28-27: Confusing at times and suspect strategy. Made the round unclear.
27-26: Mostly unclear. Strategy is poorly planned.
26-25: Non responsive and no viable strategy.
25-20: Reprehensible behavior.