3 years HS policy experience; 4 years college parliamentary experience.

I am looking for engagement between the debaters with a focus on the quality of each teams argument.

I care about how the participants choose to shape the debate and articulate how I should vote. I look for interesting arguments and how debaters respond to and weigh arguments in the round.

Hi! I am a senior at Hewitt and a Varsity debater. I am okay with you speaking fast as long as you are still articulate. Please be respectful throughout the round, or I will automatically vote for the other side.

Pieces of advice:

• Signpost (tell me where you are in your speech so I can properly flow)
• Extend your arguments throughout the round or explicitly state if you're dropping a point.
• WEIGH!!!!!! Tell me why your impact is more important than the other.

Good luck!!!!!

Whitney Young ‘15

University of Kentucky ‘19

Cornell Law '23

Former WY and UK coach; Officially not coaching anymore. This means that I have less topic knowledge than normal and you should not assume I know what your aff is or will know what those acronyms you just threw out stand for. When in doubt, invest more time in explaining your argument.

Top Level

Add me to the email chain- Jacindarivas@gmail.com

My name is Jacinda (Juh-sin-duh) so call me that instead of judge.

I will reward smart teams that can effectively and efficiently communicate their arguments to me. Engaging with your opponent, having a well-thought out strategy, and demonstrating that you’re doing consistent, hard work is what this activity is about.

Please be nice. I am not very responsive to raising voices/yelling.

Clash debates

No one ENJOYS clash debates but I end up judging quite a few. I really do believe that affs should have a tie to the topic and should be in the direction of the topic. I am not the judge for an aff that has a couple cards that say a theory and then pretend to say something about the topic. I also believe that debate is an inherently good activity so indicting the entirety of the activity we participate in is not great for me. I think this matters a lot for the way some teams answer framework so be cognizant of this. The only thing that my ballot decides is the winner.

Ks

Links should be causal, specific and about the plan. They NEED to be contextualized to what the aff actually did. I have too often judged debates where a team presents a theory of the world but have not explained what the aff has done to implicate that. Explanation is key. That applies to all Ks cause if you are just spitting jargon at me and the other team, you aren’t gonna have a good time. I am not persuaded by arguments that the aff just doesn’t get fiat.

CPs/DAs

Love them. Obviously better the more specific to the aff they are. I default to judge kick unless expressly informed not to.

There can be zero risk of a DA

Theory

Conditionality is good.

Random Things

You can insert a re-highlighting of a card- you shouldn’t have to waste time re-reading a card if they suck at research

Ethics violations (ex. Clipping, a card being cut in the middle of the paragraph, etc.) should just have the debate staked on it. It is a bad form of education and should be rejected. No point in drawing it out.

Further questions- email me at jacindarivas@gmail.com

Parent of debate students. Debated throughout HS and College.

I like for debaters to make strong, clear arguments and those are made stronger with evidence - research, real-world, or logic.

I like to see debaters stay organized and "put" their arguments against other arguments vs allowing me to determine what a claim rebuts or rebuilds. I like direct clash.

Finally, I like the arguments to be assessed and weighted by debaters throughout, but particularly in the rebuttals.

If it is argued and introduced in the round, I entertain it and believe it until disproven.