Who the heck is Candice Ahl?

       I was on the Fremont Senior High School debate team from 2000-2004 under the instruction of Fred Robertson. During my time there I competed in LD, Public forum, and Student Congress. Aarron Schurevich from Millard North was my Public forum debate partner. I qualified for Nationals and TOC.

        Since high school, I have been judging the last five years for LD, Student Congress, and Public forum. I am entering my first year as an assistant coach for Omaha North high school.

How to win my ballot - There is nothing that will automatically win or lose you the round. I will not dictate what kind of arguments you must run. With that being said, I believe that debate needs to be topical and have clear, well warranted clash. Unless a debater is running a blatantly evil case I am likely to vote for any argument that is well explained.  I will judge how you tell me to. Like almost every other judge, I have biases, but if you do the better debating, those biases will become irrelevant. Give me crystallization and voters at the end of the NR and 2AR. Make it obvious why I should be voting for you.

I see debate as a community and academic space where we should be able to have valuable discussions.

Engage and compare – lots of teams just do “extend extend extend” without engaging the other team’s arguments. The first step is always important, but the second step needs to be there. Tell me why your arguments are good/important, and then why the other team’s arguments are not. Tell me reasons to prefer your evidence/arguments. Tell me what comes first. Tell me how and why and why not to evaluate arguments. I can and will follow the flow. For extensions to be granted a debater cannot simply say “Extend my card which says x.” I need a claim, warrant and impact.

Cross-Examination - I don't flow cross-x or use it to determine my rfd. If you get a concession or something relevant and important comes from cross-x then it should be referenced in your rebuttal. You can say "remember judge they said ___ in cross-x." There are two roles of cross-x as I see it 1.) Clear up anything you found unclear or don't understand, and 2) Try to get your opponent to concede to something.  The latter is much more difficult and if your opponent isn't biting, please, please, please let it go and move on. Cross-X is not the time for you to try and prove your point or arguments true. Save that for your rebuttals. "Don't you think that" questions are unfair, biased, and tell me nothing.  Please be polite and give the other team a chance to speak--doing so won't cost you the round/speaks. 

Theory debate - I am not a huge fan of theory debate. However, I will vote off of theory if obvious abuse is present and well explained. But I greatly prefer resolutional debates. Running theory for the sake of running theory is not advantageous. I need to know you understand what you are saying, the applications, and implications. If it is a confusion tactic, please don't do it.

Speed- I can keep up with moderate speed but I will probably not get down a majority of what your saying if you go too quickly. Some debaters simply go too quickly for me to flow and most debaters just don’t spread very clearly. I will say “clear” or “slow.” Even with speed, I want variance in your tone, inflection, or speed so that you can indicate to me what is the MOST IMPORTANT parts of your case and evidence so that you make sure I don't miss it.   

Other Random Stuff-
1. Author qualifications are debattable. You can tell me why they are important and can discredit the validity of what your opponent is arguing. You do not need to accept everything your opponent is running or citing as truth.
2. Don’t sacrifice clarity for speed.
3. I award speaker points in a range of 26-30, but only include .5 as another variance to this. If I can't tell you what I think you should have done better then you will earn a 30. Cross-X is a place will I determine a speaker worth a 29 or a 30.                                                                                                                                          4. There’s a difference between being aggressive and being rude – no need to call people or arguments stupid or dumb. Don’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, or a jerk.

I'm no longer involved in the debate community. If you're reading this, you're probably in the wrong place.

I used to have a very long, detailed paradigm about how I would allow anything under xyz circumstances. However, after watching a few rounds at a recent tournament, I've changed my paradigm on debate.

I would now like debate to do what debate is meant to do:

Democratically and critically engage with pressing issues.

I will no longer listen to nontopical affirmatives. (Although you're welcome to run questionably topical affirmatives and try to convince me). I will start docking speaker points for incomprehensible speeds and yelling at me or your opponent. I will begin evaluating debates how they are meant to be evaluated, as a question of the resolution.

Experience
I debated 2 years of Public Forum in High School.
I’ve judged mostly high school Lincoln Douglas for the last 6 years.
I debated Policy for the University of Nebraska Lincoln for 3 years.

I would love to be on your email chain (and here it is if you need to contact me): aekdeb8@gmail.com

also please feel free to contact me with questions before, during, or after a tournament, I would be more than willing to help you and clarify anything to the best of my ability :)

My pronouns are she/her/hers

Background: I did policy debate at Millard West for four years. While there, I ran many different arguments on both ends of the policy-kritikal spectrum both aff and neg. In high school, I was a 2A and ran both policy geared affs and kritikal/performance affs, however, later in my high school career I mostly focused on kritikal/performance pieces. 

I graduated in 2022 from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln with a BA in political science, global studies, and French and am now a JD candidate at the Nebraska College of Law. 

It has been a MINUTE since I have been in the debate world. 

TL;DR: Debate how you want, with what you want. Run positions that you are passionate about, and bring that passion into round—but in a respectful manner. In order for me to vote on a position, I need a reason “why I should give a crap”, this means you need to give me warrants and extend and elaborate on them through the round. I will not vote on something just because “they dropped it in the…”. You also probably need to engage in your opponent’s arguments. I think often times debaters come here wanting to know if I am a k or trad judge, I'll make it easy for you I'm probably more of a k judge than a trad judge (despite the fact that I love a good framework debate), this doesn't mean that I will automatically vote for a k or a k aff, I just don't evaluate stock debates over k debates. I think the debate space is what you want it to be, in what capacity you want it to be in; I view the debate space as a flexible area and I think rules based on tradition can be silly. 

Additionally, you are driving the car in the round. I have biases, I try my best to not let them influence how I decide rounds. But, if you tell me how I am evaluating the round on a theoretical level, that is what I am going with. Whether or not it was a good argument, I'll save for the RFD. 

Policy specific positions:

Topicality: As a debater topicality was one of my favorite things to take in the block, if done right topicality is one of the most advantageous positions for the negative to run. However, if done wrong it is a waste of time. Whether or not the neg proves the aff is untopical is irrelevant unless there are voters (which need to be well explained) on the topicality—untopicality in and of itself is not a reason to vote neg. Also please have a topical version of the aff, you need something to leverage. 

Framework:Framework was potentially my favorite position to debate both aff and neg; I think framework rounds can either be extremely fun and productive, or extremely boring and redundant. Similarily to topicality, in order for me to vote on your fw I need voters and a solid reason why it matters. Framework should be framed as how you think debate as a whole should function, and you need to sell to me why that is the best possible version of the debate sphere. I love fw, and I think every 2A should have a massive file with every possible block to fw ever. 

Topicality and Framework are functionally different. They are critiquing different parts of debate, and thus, I will NOT collapse t and fw flows

Roll of the Ballot/Judge: I will only evaluate this as a question of framing, thus if you don’t give me any form of framing behind your ROB or ROJ I will disregard it

Kritiks:I think kritiks are a wonderful thing, and k debate is a wonderful world. If you are choosing to run high theory kritikal literature, you need to explain it. If I don’t understand the core thesis of your argument I am not going to vote on it. The world of the alternative needs to 1. Exist and 2. Make sense and actually do something, otherwise it is not competitive. While I love kritiks, you will not win the round for just running radical literature—warrants and clash are necessary. I have a lot of knowledge on fem lit, and most pomo lit in general, but I still need you to explain it in the context of how you are using it. The thesis of literature doesn't matter if you aren't explaining it in terms of how you are using it to your advantage. 

Counterplans:I never really had an absurd amount of engagement with CPs, but I will vote on them as long as they are competitive and proven to be a better world than the aff.

Disads: Once again, never really engaged with these, I’ll vote on it as long as there are warrants and clash

Politics: The only disad I ever really engaged with was politics, and I love politics disads. Make sure your evidence is recent, and as stated previously, warrants and clash please.

Performance Pieces: I love passion in debate rounds, and I love performance. Debate is something you should care about, and I think performance is an incredible way to show that. Thus, I will evaluate and respect your performance as long as it is somewhat relevant to the debate sphere.

Decorum:There is a fine line between having passion, and bullying in round. I will NOT tolerate disrespect and bullying, as the debate space is something that I care about deeply and I feel as if people are turning it into a non-safe space. If you are disrespectful to your partner, the other team, or myself—your speaker points will reflect it. I am super chill with speed, however, speed is less important than clarity.

Straight turns: I won't vote on straight turns like racism good, sexism good, warming good etc. In addition, if you say something morally bankrupt I will probably drop your speaker points incredibly. In addition, if the other team calls you out for saying something morally bankrupt in round I will also vote on that. 

Specific LD positions:

But first a short overview about my views on LD: While I never did LD in high school, I have been judging it fairly consistently, and get the structure and happenings of LD land. Debate how you want, run what you want to, just know that I will likely look at it from a more policy-debate bias ie if you have remaining questions about certain positions default to what I say about them in the policy section. Explain high theory arguments thoroughly, if you can't or don't explain it, I probably won't vote on it. In the time I have been judging LD it seems to have become more like policy, which bodes well for you since I come from policy land

Kritikal Affs: I love them, I think they are awesome. I think performance pieces are super cool and a great thing in the debate space, be passionate about it, and if you somewhat relate it to the topic we should be all good.

LD off-case positions: I think that running multiple offs in LD is tricky coming from policy since the time allocation is a much more difficult obstacle to overcome, that being said, make sure that you are picking the best things to spend time on given that you only have so much time to go in-depth on each position. I am way more likely to vote for a single thing that has been thoroughly gone in-depth on rather than a multitude of off-case that has been lightly glossed over and extended. How I weight different kinds of off-case positions is going to be identical to how I outline in the policy section

Underviews in the AC: in the most recent tournament I judged at I encountered theory underviews in the AC, and I really despise them. I think that preemptive arguments are pointless and that there is more room for substance in the AC without having the underviews. I won't drop you automatically or lower your speaks for it, its just a thing that exists that I felt the need to comment on.

V/C & ROB debates: I don't care what you chose to use as framing for the round, but, if you want me to use one of these as the main way I vote you're going to have to actually do work on this and tell me why and how you are upholding it and your opponent isn't. I've found that these usually don't end up being the main question in the round, but, like I said, you tell me what lens I am using to evaluate the round.

Contact info: jmsle20@gmail.com

TL;DR just explain things well to me. Make sure things are explained clearly and cross-applied to the opponents arguments and I'll do my best to understand. After judging some national circuit debate rounds as well, I’ve realized I cannot keep up with the speed of the higher level national circuit so please aware of that and slow down. I may or may not tell you to slow down.

Speed: I think i'm ok with speed, thought after dowling i've realized not as good as i used to think. Overall somewhere around 7/10 on speed. that being said, if ur going to read a theory shell or something thats really blippy with lots of short claims,example FW, you're gonna need to slow down. If you go like many many really short blippy off, please go slow. Most other things im able to keep up well enough.

I used to be a CX debater for Millard North. I debated for 3 years as a identity/performance debater from 2013-2017 with one gap year. I coach on and off for the Millard North debate team as well.

Critical Arguments: I do have a bias towards critical arguments. While I do my best to not let this cloud my judgement it does happen. While I don't have a good understanding of many arguments here I do my best to have some kind of basis for most arguments. I do struggle more with postmodern literature so in terms of those just make sure everything is clear and explained well and avoid jargon if possible. It also helps if the argument has a material basis in the alternative. While theoretical alternatives are fine, if they don't have some kind of real world example then it's harder for me to vote for. tldr for critical stuff - i have an ok baseline about the mainstream args, just make sure u explain methods/alts/links etc etc well.

Critical Affs: I like critical affs, I ran one myself in HS. That being said, make sure you're doing the work against FW teams and other K teams to explain what offense exists and why I should vote aff and not just vote neg on SSD.

Plan text Affs: I did performance and identity args in HS so I am less familiar with nuances that come from classic plan text affs vs. x offcases as well as more technical arguments. Just make sure to explain arguments and analysis and I should be fine.

T/FW: I struggle to understand them unless there is clear abuse coming from the aff. I am starting to understand them better, however T and FW debates tend to be more blippy than not so just be sure to explain offense clearly. In terms of speed on the theory debates, be careful just spreading through ur entire theory shells and stuff in front of me cause i will probably miss a lot of the one liners that you end up spreading through especially if you end up not flashing the analytics

Public Forum

In Public Forum I expect well-explained links into arguments and detailed analysis. It isn't enough to slap down a card and tell me that the evidence is newer/weighted more--explain why your evidence is better or better applied. Quality of contentions is better than quantity; I'd rather have you do a few things well than have many points with shallow reasoning and analysis. Speed is not a problem as long as you are very clear, but if it even gets close to spreading or if you have poor enunciation you will be in trouble. Maintain round decorum at all times; this includes giving trigger warnings where appropriate and providing alternative arguments if someone asks you not to use a triggering argument. Also, some judges like snappy or passive-aggressive CX, but I am not one of those judges. You don't get points for being a jerk. Be genuinely kind while remaining firm and you will get better speaker points from me.

Public Forum in not Lincoln-Douglas. Framework is possible, but do not make it the centerpiece of your case. I judge on evidence and impacts, not abstract theories and possibilities. Also, observations that are on the cusp of abuse do not sit well with me; Debate must be debatable.

While identity politics are important and can inform a round, do not rely on them exclusively. Belonging to a particular group does not absolve the burden of your side in the round, nor does it give you an automatic advantage. Rely on your case and evidence; if an argument is offensive it is fine to point that out, but you must explain to me why that matters in the larger scheme of the round. 

Lincoln-Douglas

In Lincoln-Douglas I look for contentions that link well with the framework and a detailed analysis and explanation of the framework. I am more familiar with traditional value and criterion-based frameworks, but as long as you do a good job of explaining your case to me I can usually keep up. I do enjoy high theory or off-the-wall cases and kritiks, but only if you explain the reasoning clearly to me. If I can't understand the framework due to a lack of explanation, I will have to default to my own reasoning in the world of the round in order to judge. Also, while I believe Debate is an intellectual game, I can also believe that my ballot can have a role if you lay out a good reason for that clearly for me. 

Please be very respectful of your opponent in round. Some people love to get snippy in CX or throw out little jabs, but I hate that. For better speaker points from me, be polite but firm. You don't get points for being a jerk.

Spreading is risky, as you must be very clear to make sure I can follow you; for reference, what would be considered "fast" for PF would be a comfortable pace for me. Anything faster I will still probably be able to catch most of it, but if you want to do well without risk, you will speak at a pace I can easily understand.