Read what is pertinent for you and feel free to ask for clarifications before or after round:

Pronouns: They/Them/Theirs

Background: Hi! My name is Heidi Adolphsen and I graduated from Whitman College in 2023. I debated at Boise High School for 3 years in Policy, LD, and Congress before receiving a scholarship to debate for the following 4 years at Whitman. I competed at the National Level in NPDA and am most comfortable judging Parli. I also competed in IPDA and speech events, but am less familiar there.

Overview: I am best at judging NPDA and Policy compared to other events. I try to adapt my judging style to the preferred style of the event. For instance, because Public Forum is supposed to be an accessible and quality-focused debate, I judge based on clarity and cohesiveness of arguments. Since IPDA is speechier, I put a slightly higher emphasis on speaking style. For all events, I am comfortable and familiar with the technical aspects of debate. Things like presumption, apriori, offense and defense, and other topics that pertain to the strategy of debate matter to me. If your event doesn't typically bring those ideas into the debate, don't bring them up for my sake, but know that the theories behind how debates are won and lost are how I keep my judging consistent and fair. I will listen to practically any arguments you throw at me, give me your whacky stuff and I can handle it.

Big Tent Online: I probably have never seen your event before unless it's Parli, Ipda, PF or LD. I will be trying my best to keep up. I prefer if you time yourselves and your opponents.

Round behavior: Be on-time, respect your opponents and debate against the best version of their arguments. I will judge based on my flow, so I recommend you flow as well. I will not listen to arguments for genocide and will stop the round if racism, xenophobia or transphobia etc.. transpires.

NPDA:

Positions:

Kritik: Yes, I love your K's on either side of the debate. K affs are better if they are rooted in the resolution, but I will listen to justifications for access to non-topical versions of the affirmative. The framework should be informed by your methodology and not just as a way to define your team as the winning team. ("ROB: vote negative to..." is one of my least favorite debate mechanisms). Your links should be contextualized to in-round indictments and are stronger than generics. An alternative that solves the harms of the K must be present in order for you to win your K. I don't love rejection alts in the same vein of not liking "ROBs: vote negative to..." Permutations of the K alternatives are fine, but I will need substantial work on how the perm functions especially if the links aren't resolved. If you are introducing something like Lacaan, D&G, Beaudrillard, Psychopolitics etc. please explain your lit base well. I may have read the theory a while ago, but I will not remember unless you remind me. I also don't like voting for your case if I recognize that your theory comes from someone that caused mass death to others. If you don't specify an author when asked, but I recognize the author, I will be frustrated. Your opponents should be able to learn from and grasp every concept you bring into the round even if they can't win against your arguments.

Procedurals/Theory: Yes, I love your T's. I've noticed a strong trend of either using T exclusively to overwork your opponents or going all in from the LOC. It seems the latter to be the stronger strategy, but won't discredit the time-suck strategy. If you don't collapse to one T, and it's still hanging around by the end of the debate, it probably won't win you my ballot. I'll listen to any procedural but I'm more sympathetic to some than others. Under/over spec arguments seem counter to the affs right to parametrize so I'm less likely to vote there, but will still listen and am willing to vote if compelled to. A-spec, F-spec, E-spec are all fine. Topicality is great. Do not run a bunch of them please. Cross-applying standards and voters across T-sheets without new contextualization is not compelling and makes my flow so messy. Conditionality is an acceptable argument if there are multiple negative advocacies that cause the aff to double-turn themselves. Articulated abuse is always better than potential abuse. I default to competing interpretations unless otherwise told. I will probably never vote on MO perm theory.

Disadvantages: All Disadvantages need to have specific links to the affirmative. Unique disadvantages with smaller impacts are more likely to turn my ballot than generic disadvantages with weak links and high magnitude impacts. There are different types of Politics DA's and I prefer some and despise others. If you have too many internal links like a wish-washy claim about how a certain group will react against the plan, I will probably not be convinced. If you have highly specific scenarios, with well-researched and empirically accurate reactions, I might be. If you have mechanical or agenda politics that affect how a policy will go into play, not dependent on how reactions will play out, I will be pretty happy.

Counter-plans: I am fine with most types of counterplans including +1, PICS, timeframes etc. Theory arguments help to justify CP's strategic legitimacy. I also think mutual exclusivity competitiveness should always be preferred over functional competitiveness derived from net-benefits or disadvantages. Permutations are great and must be accompanied with a justification and are best supported by theory responses as well.

Other Specifics:

Speed: I am willing to hear some speed. If you have a spready case, go ahead and go fast and I will slow you until you are at a comfortable pace for me, or until I realize you are set on a pace and won't go any slower. Therefore, you can go as fast as you want, but it is not always the best strategic choice because I won't be able to flow your arguments as well.

Speakers: I flow the words that come out of the designated speakers mouth. If you are reading a performance and your partner has to read something in a different language or say something you can't, that is something I will flow to the best of my ability, but you should flag that so I know to flow it.

Status of Arguments: It is your responsibility to ask, and for the other team to answer.

Texts: All Plans, ROBS, theses, etc. should be read twice and made available for the other team on paper or in chat

Flow: Please give me an order, sign-post and give me time to switch to the next argument.

Identity Politics:Talking about personal experiences should absolutely be welcomed and appreciated in debate platforms. However, I think that forced disclosure is a real problem and if your opponents have to enter an unsafe space to engage with your argument then we might have an issue.

Cade, he/him

Current Affiliations - competitor @ Washburn University: '21-Present, coach @ North Broward Prep: '22-Present.

Past Affiliations - Topeka High School: '17-'21

Don't be mean, this should be a fun event for everyone. People who are mean will be punished via lower speaks. People who are actively awful (discriminatory, violent, or hateful to no end) will be punished via a combination of lower speaks, an L, and a discussion with relevant coaches/adults affiliated with your school.

cade.blenden03@gmail.com

Policy:

Speed is fine, a lack of clarity is not. Debaters should go as fast as they can without over-exerting themselves and falling off of pace. Nuanced debates that require lots of analytics, etc. (think counterplan competition or theory) should be slowed down a solid 20% to make sure I can keep up. I will not be afraid to say I did not catch something if it was too fast for me to get down.

Able to judge anything, probably have a bit of a critical bend. I'd prefer you to read the arguments you are most comfortable with than attempting to try to adapt to me--you are most likely a better orator on the positions you are confident in!

T/Theory/Etc. - these debates are my least favorite, but I feel as if I blame this on the fact that I cannot for the life of me keep up on these subjects if both teams decide to spread through quick tags, short cards, and large blocks of theory arguments without providing sufficient pen time. I am game for T and theory, just know I am not a flowing savant, and thus going very fast through a large amount of arguments is difficult. Keeping this in mind probably means you will have a much easier time keeping me in debates like this.

Judge kick seems to make sense if condo is justified, but I am game to question either of those premises.

"Cheating" counterplans (international fiat, object fiat, etc.) are up for debate, though I am much more likely to be persuaded if you can find a decent literature base that advocates in specific the proposal you defend, i.e., the world government counterplan with a solvency advocate is probably more convincing than a specific bilateral cooperation/action counterplan without one.

Competing interpretations makes logical sense, reasonability seems arbitrary and indeterminate, but I am down to be convinced otherwise.

CP/DA - these debates are fine, though I get lost with too much jargon (idk what a link controlling uniqueness or the inverse means or the impact it has on the round--if this is your schtick, explain the implication of what you are saying so I can keep up!)---impact comparison is the quickest way to get me with arguments like this.

K - As long as you can explain it! Don't mind listening to anything, though tags beyond three sentences and I may be a bit annoyed. I privilege debaters who can effectively explain their argument and contextualize it to the scenario of the debate round we are in. Topic-specific K > backfile check.

Case - Big case debate guy. Consequently also a big presumption guy--so many teams get away with warrantless 2ACs on case that are easily punished by spending some extra time there. From affirmatives, I would appreciate an effort to ensure the advantages/solvency mechanisms/etc. are explained/extended in some capacity in each speech, beyond mere tagline mentions. Efficiency should not come at the cost of argumentative depth and clarity. All I have said here applies especially to critical affirmatives. I much prefer cap + fwk and case to 5 nonsense variations of the heg DA that don't link.

More teams should be willing to defend their affirmative against the K--if ur aff sets up the link turn really well, don't invest needless time in setting up a losing perm debate!

PF:

Talk about the topic. Compare impacts. Respond to your opponents arguments. The more these things get overcomplicated, the harder PF becomes to understand and reliably judge.

LD:

I am judging this like a policy debate. Theory is not something I am the biggest fan of--especially some of the 'LD' type frivolous theory arguments.

I’m tabula rasa - blank slate. I’ll vote how you persuade me to vote factoring the things you persuade me to factor. I debated in HS and College and am now a practicing lawyer. The activity is so influential and positive for growth - whether research or public speaking or advocacy or competition - so many aspects of debate are huge values to help us be good citizens. And all are debatable in the round!

Good debates will weigh evidence and make distinctions between quality of evidence, likelihood of links and solvency, and magnitude of impacts and advantages. Counterplans and Kritiks also can shake up the formula, tell me how and why (or why not) and I’ll stand open to reason.

Good luck! Feel free to ask me questions about any specifics!

I debated 4 years of policy in high school and 4 years in NPDA parli debate for Washburn.

I can go in lots of different directions but I’m most comfortable being a policymaker. I lie more on the “politician/lawyer” side of debate roleplaying than “academic/activist”. I like hearing substantive debates about ideas and policy consequences more than hearing debate after debate about the same critical/theoretical topics. Not that you can’t run those, this is just my preference.

My only other real preference is that I think debate’s core value should be education. If you run theory arguments or critical arguments, make your standards/voters center education and explain to me how your position is better for education, especially topic-specific education. When I look back on my time in debate, the topic education and research skills are the thing I found indispensable in the long run. We should aim to make this space as enriching as we can.

If you run critical stuff the links are extremely important. Please explain to me why this topic or this aff case in particular is so important to run this exact K against. I’m pretty partial to the perm otherwise. I’m also pretty partial to links being independent disads against the aff, if argued well. I love hearing the topic/aff being very specifically deconstructed on critical grounds.

I’m ok with speed but I think debate should be an activity where we try to enhance and enrich our communication skills, and not end up a mealymouthed double-clutching race to the bottom. If you’re too fast or difficult to understand it has a good chance of significantly costing you.

I try my best to not look at your evidence unless 1) there is a dispute over something with the evidence, like claims of powertagging or false tagging or something, or 2) I miss something and it wasn't your fault, sometimes it happens and if I know you said it and just need to grab it I will. Otherwise I really try to stay out of looking at your docs because this is a communication activity and I want you to make the conscious choice to spend time on your winners and use your own analysis to communicate why your evidence and arguments should win the round!

My background is in policy debate.

As a judge, I appreciate organization and a debater's ability to "connect the dots" between their arguments and responses. I tend to view things through an offense/defense paradigm. I want debaters to clearly impact out their arguments, or in other words, tell me why what they are saying matters, and it matters more/is more true than whatever your opponents are saying. At the end of a debate, I do not want to be trying to guess what a team meant or be in the position of relying on an assumption to decide a round.

Debate rounds have winners and losers as well as individual speaker points. Debate is also a persuasive activity and is meant to be a competitive educational extracurricular activity. These are all reasons to consider how you approach cross-examination and interacting with people during the round.

Please do not speak loudly during each other's speeches & clearly state when you are/are not taking prep time.