Hi everyone!

I'll be honest I've been pretty out of the activity for about 2 years now (as of 10/2/2018), which just means I won't know all the topic specific acronyms/shorthand. This activity means a lot to me though so I'll do everything I can to judge the round as fairly and equitably as possible.

I worked as a Rehabilitation counselor for people who have severe mental illnesses for a year and a half, and now I do website/content management for a consulting company on behalf of the department of Housing and Urban Development.

In case you were wondering.

Email chains are always preferable and def add me on them: panettidebate1@gmail.com.

I debated at JMU for 4 years (and in high school for 2 years but lol) graduating in 2016. I mostly ran the K but love a good policy debate.

My facial expressions are generally pretty telling, but sometimes aren't if I'm tired or hungry.

TL;DR: Do what you want. Specificity and examples win debates. Don’t be mean.

Overall:

I've been told I'm a "big picture" judge. This doesn't mean I love overviews, although I think they can be helpful for framing a speech in certain instances. I really like it when arguments are well thought out and articulated, and interact with the other team's arguments, which is much more important to me than reading lots of cards. That being said, evidence is important, and I'll read it if it's relevant in the speech/you tell me to.

Being able to talk about your impacts and how they interact with your opponents' impacts is really important to me as well. I want to do as little work as possible and will become frustrated if I have to do a lot of work for you.

I think my "role" is to decide who wins the debate. I think debate is a game, but it's also an extremely beneficial and important activity that can help develop a lot of great skills/attributes in a person. I can however be convinced debate is something other than these things. I’ll do everything I can to evaluate the round based on what you tell me is most important.

Role of the ballot arguments are often super self serving, but you can convince me why the ballot means something other than winning the debate.

Basically do what you want/are good at and I'll do my best to decide who won the round. Is doing the Aff a good idea? If yes: Aff ballot, if no: Neg ballot.

Framework:

Framework is the lens through which I view the round. Framework as a theoretical issue I don’t generally find persuasive. K’s probably should be allowed in debate, so just tell me how I should evaluate your impacts, and why that way of viewing things is the best. I’ll vote on impact turns to the K representations, or to Framework, but they – like all arguments – have to be well explained. Fairness is an internal link, not an impact. Specific tangible examples about what their lack of fairness does in debate are impacts.

Topical version is pretty important I think and you should treat it almost like a counterplan with a net benefit (the net benefit being the impacts to framework). Don’t try and actually perm the T version though, just explain why there isn’t one.

“That’s a voter for fairness and education” means nothing. Tangible, specific examples of what they do that’s awful and what that means for debate will serve you so well.

Topicality:

I generally think you should have some kind of relation to the topic. However I can be persuaded otherwise. I do believe that topic education is important AND that that can look like something different than the resolution. I’m more likely persuaded by “your argument is inaccessible”/Topical version of the aff. The more specific the better.

I – like most I think – default to competing interpretations. If you have a plan you probably should defend the implementation of it.

I generally find T to be most persuasive when there’s actual apparent abuse in the round. Potential abuse can be a voter though, just explain why the standard they set is problematic and what tangible impacts they cause.

Kritikal affs:

Down with them. Again I generally think you should have some kind of relation to the topic but can be persuaded otherwise. I love creative and new affs on things I haven't seen/heard about before. If you're not going for traditional policy impacts having a tangible reason why your impacts are more important is helpful, especially in debates where I'm told extinction comes first. I can absolutely be persuaded that structural violence/small every day violences outweighs extinction level impacts, that's just doing good impact comparison. Examples are super helpful here.

If your aff is pretty vague about what it does I'm generally more sympathetic to perm theory. If you don't really defend anything until the other team reads their arguments, then all of the sudden you were always solving for their stuff, I'm more persuaded to vote on theory, or at least to not give you a perm.

If you have a plan text/advocacy statement I generally think you should defend it. If you don't, then explain to me what unique insight you provide about the topic that traditional policy affs miss.

Kritiks:

I love em, but if you're super uncomfortable with going for them don't. I read mostly Taoism (Piglet), along with Gender, Foucault, Cap/Marx, Imperialism, and a few Baudrillard cards among other things. If you're reading super dense post modern French philosophers that's fine but you HAVE to be able to explain it to me like I'm 9. All your metaphysical rhizomatic epistemological jargon means absolutely nothing and if the other team, or more importantly I, don't understand what you're talking about you're gonna have a bad time.

Specific link work is much more important to me than most I think. I believe that it's your job to cater your kritik to each individual aff and if you're not doing that you're not doing your job. If you're running a K and reading generic state bad link cards, I'll be substantially less likely to be persuaded than if you do specific links to the 1AC, their rhetoric, impacts, etc. Links to the status quo are not persuasive to me. The links are super important because they're offense against the perm, so treat them as such.

K impacts I treat just like any other impact: explain why they outweigh/are more important than the other team's impacts. You saying that we experience a biopolitical death means nothing to me. What does that look like? What is a tangible example of biopolitical death in the world of the aff? Who experiences the biopolitical death?

Root cause arguments have been admittedly persuasive to me in the past. I recognize that they can absolutely be a race to the bottom though, and teams generally don't handle them well/don't have super good/specific evidence. I think if you have compelling reasons why your impacts are the root cause of the aff specifically, not just a certain kind of violence in general I'm more willing to give you this argument. If the debate becomes a chicken vs egg thing though, I’ll be more likely to make it a moot point and move on to external impacts.

Also always have an external impact. This is especially true for K v K debates. Yes I’m sure someone somewhere solves some kind of structural oppression/violence, but if you have an external reason why your stuff matters, I’ll be more likely to vote for you.

I love specific, actionable alternatives. I don't wanna hear how your reject capitalism alt solves violence. I wanna hear what it means to reject capitalism. What does that look like? How do I do that here in this round/with my ballot? Alt solvency is most often under covered by K debaters, so if you do a really good job on explaining what your alt is, how it functions, and how it solves, you'll be rewarded for it.

Also, quick note I am overwhelmingly unpersuaded by the rhetoric K where you control F to find a word that "links" because I think it promotes bad debate. If that's the Kritik you run best definitely run it, just know if the whole strategy is premised off the other team saying or having a "bad word" in their aff, I’m very sympathetic to language fluidity and trivialization arguments, and it’s likely to be an uphill battle for you. This does not by any means mean your language in the round doesn't matter because it absolutely does, and if you say something offensive in round it'll be reflected in your speaker points.

Counterplans:

Creative counterplans can be really cool. Just make sure the net benefit is actually external to the case. For theory I generally believe condo is almost always a time suck, and would rather you spend that time talking about case takeouts/turns and your impacts. If you do go for condo go for it. A technical condo win doesn’t usually happen in rounds I judge, but if the other team hard drops something and you all the way go for it, I will absolutely evaluate it.

Disads:

I tend to believe there can be zero risk of a link, but can be persuaded otherwise. Internal links in Disads are often terrible, and challenging them will serve you well. That being said, having a solid internal link story will make me very happy and probably net you better speaker points. Impact calculus is v important. Going back to Novice fundamentals is useful, and not a lot of people do it anymore; magnitude, timeframe and probability are all pretty essential things to talking about impacts and get overlooked unfortunately.

Uniqueness overwhelms the link arguments are generally pretty persuasive to me if it does, especially if you give specific examples of other things that should have already triggered the link. For the neg the more specific your link and brink analysis are the better off you’ll be.

Case:

Have a case debate!!! Talking about the aff is almost always a good idea! I’m absolutely willing to vote on presumption (presumption flips aff when there’s a CP/Alt). Case turns are terrific, and I always had fun straight turning advantages. The more specific you are when you talk about the case the better. Examples will also suit you very well here.

Above all be nice to your opponent and have fun! Debate, while competitive should be a fun, enjoyable activity! This is especially true because we devote so much time and effort into it.

Always ask questions, both after and in between rounds. I want to be as helpful as I possibly can!

I have been coaching all four categories of debate for First Colonial High School for the past decade. I have judged hundreds of rounds of both LD and PF. I also moonlight as a congress judge when needed/called upon. I don't subject myself to Policy unless it is an absolute necessity.

Etiquette is important. While I may not vote down a debater for rudeness or lack of etiquette, it will affect their speaker points. Since debate is about education, dialogue, discussion, etc., I personally believe that lacking manners is a major problem (since people do not want to engage with those who do not know how to treat others properly). You can be assertive, and even aggressive, without being a condescending jerk. Maintaining one's composure and displaying self-control (even in a heated round) is critical to me as a judge.

In LD, I do not want to be a part of the use of progressive tactics, as I strongly prefer more traditional LD debates. So absolutely no spreading, please no kritiks or counterplans (things will just get weird as there is just enough time in round to try and do it properly), and if you come into the round lacking a value and/or value criterion (because you plan to debate like an individual policy entry...) then you can pretty much count on me NOT voting you up. If you do not personally agree with this, please feel free to strike me (trust that I will not be offended).

In PF, there are couple notes I like to share. First, in the god awful periods of the round known as Cross-Fire, I do not flow anything that is said unless it is brought up in an actual speech afterwards. Just something to keep in mind. Also, see the brief paragraph on etiquette (cross-fire seems to make us forget about politeness in the heat of the moment). Second, (although this should go without saying) if you cannot produce a proper card or the article from which you base your evidence on during the round, then I wont flow it. I have this happen a few times in PF. Also, please have things organized to quickly pull up source info if it is requested. I wont make you use prep time to find cards unless we get way behind on time because it takes you all forever to find the requested info. I only bring this up because it has seemed to be an issue in at least half a dozen rounds this year. Lastly, (this is more of a personal preference) I do not find single contention cases to be very persuasive. While I have voted up teams with single contention cases on occasion, these types of cases tend to be gimmicks and lessen the overall quality of debate.

Most of all, I like debate and I love teaching, so I want you to know that I am still up for learning (and do not mind kids taking risks or chances in their tactics/strategy in rounds). I only give you the previous notes/comments to help you tweak your tactics and/or strategy if you feel it is necessary (and I like to give the LD debaters who only wish to do more progressive LD stuff a chance to strike me as a judge). I am fairly easy going, and I will always be happy to answer any clarifying questions before the rounds start.

I think I hit everything, if not... oh well (trust me, it will be okay).

Just because I like to end this with something you will likely think is weird, ambiguous (and possibly stoopid) --> In the end, everything and everyone that you have ever known, cared about, stressed over, etc. will be dust and will one day be forgotten by all others who will exist... so stop worrying and remember that everything is nothing, and nothing is everything. Live in the moment, and Godspeed to you all.

Oh yeah, remember that I will not be offended if you strike me as a judge. Just saying...