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 parametrisize 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.

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 not a spready debater, nor a spready judge, but 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.

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.

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 name is jas liu. i use they/them pronouns. im a current NPDA parli debater at Whitman College and i did policy debate for 3 years in high school. put me on the email chain - jackxlliu@gmail.com

i debated mostly k's in high school but now in college i find that i do lot of policy and T focused arguments. that being said, i feel comfortable judging most if not all arguments. if you want to run k affs, 2ac/mg theory, straight policy neg with 4 DA's and 3 CP's, go for it. feel free do whatever you want. just remember to explain your arguments instead of assuming i already know them. im good with speed but slow down a little for online debates. ill slow/clear you if i have trouble keeping up with your pace.

if theres anything specific you need to know just ask me before the round. ill pretty much just listen to anything as long as you debate it well. don't be rude to your opponents. i will tank your speaks and drop you if it becomes excessive. 

I care a lot about disasters, fires, floods, and killer bees.

Experience: Competed in 4 years 3A Kansas High School Policy and 4 years Midwest-regional and PKD/NCCFI College Parli. I have a background of coaching LD, Parli, IPDA, the occasional very rare Worlds tournament; but IEs are the real undercurrent of my coaching career. I've coached a Parliamentary National Championship at Phi Rho Pi and PKD, but only rarely have been involved with NPDA-circuit competition. Current ADOD/F at Whitman.

Because metaphors are the cool thing to do these days, I view debate like Professional Wrestling; theatrical spectacle with ambiguous rulesets that are sometimes "broken" to up the entertainment and education factor. National-level rounds are hopefully grandiose back-and-forth engagements where either side, made up of larger-than-life personalities, is winning speech to speech. Please don't have me evaluate a Dusty Finish, I'd like a clear winner, so clash like champions and give your best Impact Calc promo.

TL:DR: Cool with anything, don't advocate for genocide or advocates of genocide. Might be a step behind on my flowing ability ("he's still got it *clapclap clapclapclap*"...hopefully). Again, with the wrestling metaphor; please be kind through the round, but especially before and after. We are a reviving community, and our future is in our hands.

I like good theory debate, don't like bad theory debate (Duh). A good theory debate would involve teams providing their interpretation of the theoretical issue, warrants to justify that as the superior interpretation and indicts of their opponents interpretation. Bad theory debate almost always lack the third and frequently the first. I have little problem pulling the trigger on a theory debate as long as those implications are clearly identified and explained early in the debate.

I like well-applied evidence. I don't mind sifting through a bunch of cards to decide a debate, but I'd rather not. At that point I am forced to make my own evaluations to the quality or comparative value of evidence that you might not agree with. So help make those comparisons for me. Final rebuttals (or even earlier speeches) that isolate the warrants in their evidence and use that to make comparisons will save me a lot of trouble and you a lot of disappointment if I see things differently.

Style tends to be a matter of taste. I am encouraged about the willingness of teams to expand the stylistics of debate, but remain deeply committed to the core principle of rejoinder. In other words, the ability for critical debate. I welcome performative arguments, but I think you must provide a point for your opponents discourse to engage and respond or, absent that, accept your opponents' attempts to do so.I have some problems with being asked to simply affirm a performance as that seems at cross purposes with the nature of this activity. Other than that, BE NICE! Zero style points for being a jerk.

I'm a pretty flexible judge. Tell me what to do and I'll generally do it. I have a set of assumptions and criteria about how to evaluate a debate that I will fall back to absent instructions from the debaters. If you have any questions about that, just ask before we start. Most importantly, I like impact and issue comparisons in the final rebuttals. Statements like "Even if" or "Regardless of if they win" or "My impacts should always be preferred because" will go far to win my ballot. Too many debates are reduced to trying to stack a bunch of impacts on your side and hope it is enough to outweigh. Don't be that kind of debater, give me a big picture and weigh it out for me.