I was a policy debater at Harker from 2012-2017 and now coach there. I primarily read policy-leaning arguments, and most of my 2NRs consisted of a DA/case, DA/CP, or Topicality. I now primarily judge and coach LD: I would most prefer to judge LARP debates. I would least prefer to judge tricks/theory debates. If you read tricks, phil, ridiculous/frivolous theory, or Ks with "B" letter authors, you will likely lose. RVIs are not a thing.

If you're doing an email chain, I'd like to be on it: anikaluvsla@gmail.com

In broad terms, I'd appreciate if you could use the most warrants and do the most comparisons that you think you need to in order to win. I evaluate arguments by thinking about their relative risk, but don't know if "zero risk" is as much a thing as people say in debates. Your arguments must consist of a claim, warrant, and impact - I will not read your evidence to construct the latter 2 parts of this for you.

CP: with specific solvency advocates are the best; otherwise, are still good. as a longtime 2a, probably lean aff on cp theory but can surely be persuaded otherwise.

DA: good. politics too.

Topicality: enjoyable when there is clear and specific clash, not enjoyable if extremely generic or out of context violations. case lists and impact comparisons are important. don't really want to see your pre written Nebel 2nr

Kritiks: enjoy these when there is a clearly articulated and specific link, not a random set of cards you read in every debate. i am more familiar with kritiks of security, capitalism, etc., and enjoy when the neg can point to specific things regarding the affirmative rather than blanket statements. I also enjoy the use of historical examples and well thought out impacts in these debates. The alt is very important. I am not inclined to voting on a K without a clear explanation of the alt. not interested in arguments that rely on the idea that death is good, not real, or anything similar to that.

Planless Affs: I went for framework against every planless aff I ever debated: do with that information what you will. topical version of the aff will compose a significant part of my decision in these debates, though I've come to think it's not necessary. I also do not think it necessarily would have to solve the aff.

Theory: I probably have some predispositions but will try my best to put them aside when I judge your debate. Especially in LD, I have a low threshold for what I consider a dumb argument (read: rvi, spec, afc), and I don't particularly want to judge a debate where you throw out a bunch of random shells and see what sticks.

Speaker Points: I'm a pretty sarcastic person, so I appreciate some of that and humor (while still maintaining respect). Be nice but bold, and use CX well. If you are not clear and I do not hear an argument then that is on you: be clear enough to convey the arguments you want to win on. I'm becoming increasingly annoyed with lots of CX/prep spent asking your opponent to list all the arguments they made, or waiting forever for a marked copy so you can see what cards they skipped- you should be flowing.

About me:

• I am a Harker Teacher Judge. 
• Non-Internventionist: I try really hard to be fair and objective to both sides of an argument. I do not let my biases or background knowledge taint who or how I vote each round. I vote for which team did the better debating, not which team is closer to truth.
• Style: Please speak slowly, clearly, and number your points. Flow your opponents, and answer their main arguments sequentially. I prefer the debate to have an organizational clash that makes reasoned judgement possible.
• Quality: I care about argument quality, not argument quantity. I vote for the team that did the better debating. Source quality matters to me - if you read qualified soures, tell me their qualifications and read exact quotes (not debater biased paraphrasing) and it is more likely I believe it.
• Note Taking: I will take notes during each speech, to keep a record to better organize the debate to help evaluate which side wins.
• Rebuttals matter: In your last speeches - be sure to summarize the main points you want me to vote on and offer impact calculs why that outweighs your opponents main points. I wll limit my decision to soley arguments extended in the last two speeches. Competely new arguments cannot be first brought up in the rebuttals, because both sides need a chance to develop the argument in earlier speeches first. If new arguments are brought up, I will ignore them.
• No Double Wins: I will vote for, at most, only one team.
• Fair Speaker Points: My speaker points range from 24 to 29.5 in public forum and 26 to 29 in ld/policy. Both are with tenths of a point, no ties, unless otherwise noted by the tournament. The average mean is a 28 across all events. 
• Have fun. Be courteous. Treat eachother with respect. 

For PF: Speaks capped at 27.5 if you don't read cut cards (with tags) and send speech docs via email chain prior to your speech of cards to be read (in constructives, rebuttal, summary, or any speech where you have a new card to read). I'm done with paraphrasing and pf rounds taking almost as long as my policy rounds to complete. Speaks will start at 28.5 for teams that do read cut cards and do send speech docs via email chain prior to speech. In elims, since I can't give points, it will be a overall tiebreaker.

For Policy: Speaks capped at 28 if I don't understand each and every word you say while spreading (including cards read). I will not follow along on the speech doc, I will not read cards after the debate (unless contested or required to render a decision), and, thus, I will not reconstruct the debate for you but will just go off my flow. I can handle speed, but I need clarity not a speechdoc to understand warrants. Speaks will start at 28.5 for teams that are completely flowable. I'd say about 85% of debaters have been able to meet this paradigm.

I'd also mostly focus on the style section and bold parts of other sections.

---

2018 update: College policy debaters should look to who I judged at my last college judging spree (69th National Debate Tournament in Iowa) to get a feeling of who will and will not pref me. I also like Buntin's new judge philosophy (agree roughly 90%).

It's Fall 2015. I judge all types of debate, from policy-v-policy to non-policy-v-non-policy. I think what separates me as a judge is style, not substance.

I debated for Texas for 5 years (2003-2008), 4 years in Texas during high school (1999-2003). I was twice a top 20 speaker at the NDT. I've coached on and off for highschool and college teams during that time and since. I've ran or coached an extremely wide diversity of arguments. Some favorite memories include "china is evil and that outweighs the security k", to "human extinction is good", to "predictions must specify strong data", to "let's consult the chinese, china is awesome", to "housing discrimination based on race causes school segregation based on race", to "factory farms are biopolitical murder", to “free trade good performance”, to "let's reg. neg. the plan to make businesses confident", to “CO2 fertilization, SO2 Screw, or Ice Age DAs”, to "let the Makah whale", etc. Basically, I've been around.

After it was pointed out that I don't do a great job delineating debatable versus non-debatable preferences, I've decided to style-code bold all parts of my philosophy that are not up for debate. Everything else is merely a preference, and can be debated.

Style/Big Picture:

• I strongly prefer to let the debaters do the debating, and I'll reward depth (the "author+claim + warrant + data+impact" model) over breadth (the "author+claim + impact" model) any day.

• When evaluating probabilistic predictions, I start from the assumption everyone begins at 0%, and you persuade me to increase that number (w/ claims + warrants + data). Rarely do teams get me past 5%. A conceeded claim (or even claim + another claim disguised as the warrant) will not start at 100%, but remains at 0%.

• Combining those first two essential stylistic criteria means, in practice, many times I discount entirely even conceded, well impacted claims because the debaters failed to provide a warrant and/or data to support their claim. It's analogous to failing a basic "laugh" test. I may not be perfect at this rubric yet, but I still think it's better than the alternative (e.g. rebuttals filled with 20+ uses of the word “conceded” and a stack of 60 cards).

• I'll try to minimize the amount of evidence I read to only evidence that is either (A) up for dispute/interpretation between the teams or (B) required to render a decision (due to lack of clash amongst the debaters). In short: don't let the evidence do the debating for you.

• Humor is also well rewarded, and it is hard (but not impossible) to offend me.

• I'd also strongly prefer if teams would slow down 15-20% so that I can hear and understand every word you say (including cards read). While I won't explicitly punish you if you don't, it does go a mile to have me already understand the evidence while you're debating so I don't have to sort through it at the end (especially since I likely won't call for that card anyway).

• Defense can win a debate (there is such as thing as a 100% no link), but offense helps more times than not.

• I'm a big believer in open disclosure practices, and would vote on reasoned arguments about poor disclosure practices. In the perfect world, everything would be open-source (including highlighting and analytics, including 2NR/2AR blocks), and all teams would ultimately share one evidence set. You could cut new evidence, but once read, everyone would have it. We're nowhere near that world. Some performance teams think a few half-citations work when it makes up at best 45 seconds of a 9 minute speech. Some policy teams think offering cards without highlighting for only the first constructive works. I don't think either model works, and would be happy to vote to encourage more open disclosure practices. It's hard to be angry that the other side doesn't engage you when, pre-round, you didn't offer them anything to engage.

• You (or your partner) must physically mark cards if you do not finish them. Orally saying "mark here" (and expecting your opponents or the judge to do it for you) doesn't count. After your speech (and before cross-ex), you should resend a marked copy to the other team. If pointed out by the other team, failure to do means you must mark prior to cross-ex. I will count it as prep time times two to deter sloppy debate.

• By default, I will not “follow along” and read evidence during a debate. I find that it incentivizes unclear and shallow debates. However, I realize that some people are better visual than auditory learners and I would classify myself as strongly visual. If both teams would prefer and communicate to me that preference before the round, I will “follow along” and read evidence during the debate speeches, cross-exs, and maybe even prep.

Topicality:

• I like competing interpretations, the more evidence the better, and clearly delineated and impacted/weighed standards on topicality.

• Abuse makes it all the better, but is not required (doesn't unpredictability inherently abuse?).

• Treat it like a disad, and go from there. In my opinion, topicality is a dying art, so I'll be sure to reward debaters that show talent.

• For the aff – think offense/defense and weigh the standards you're winning against what you're losing rather than say "at least we're reasonable". You'll sound way better.

Framework:

• The exception to the above is the "framework debate". I find it to be an uphill battle for the neg in these debates (usually because that's the only thing the aff has blocked out for 5 minutes, and they debate it 3 out of 4 aff rounds).

• If you want to win framework in front of me, spent time delineating your interpretation of debate in a way that doesn't make it seem arbitrary. For example "they're not policy debate" begs the question what exactly policy debate is. I'm not Justice Steward, and this isn't pornography. I don't know when I've seen it. I'm old school in that I conceptualize framework along “predictability”; "topic education", “policymaking education”, and “aff education” (topical version, switch sides, etc) lines.

• “We're in the direction of the topic” or “we discuss the topic rather than a topical discussion” is a pretty laughable counter-interpretation.

• For the aff, "we agree with the neg's interp of framework but still get to weigh our case" borders on incomprehensible if the framework is the least bit not arbitrary.

Case Debate

• Depth in explanation over breadth in coverage. One well explained warrant will do more damage to the 1AR than 5 cards that say the same claim.

• Well-developed impact calculus must begin no later than the 1AR for the Aff and Negative Block for the Neg.

• I enjoy large indepth case debates. I was 2A who wrote my own community unique affs usually with only 1 advantage and no external add-ons. These type of debates, if properly researched and executed, can be quite fun for all parties.

Disads

• Intrinsic perms are silly. Normal means arguments are less so.

• From an offense/defense paradigm, conceded uniqueness can control the direction of the link. Conceded links can control the direction of uniqueness. The in round application of "why" is important.

• A story / spin is usually more important (and harder for the 1AR to deal with) than 5 cards that say the same thing.

Counterplan Competition:

• I generally prefer functionally competitive counterplans with solvency advocates delineating the counterplan versus the plan (or close) (as opposed to the counterplan versus the topic), but a good case for textual competition can be made with a language K netbenefit.

• Conditionality (1 CP, SQ, and 1 K) is a fact of life, and anything less is the negative feeling sorry for you (or themselves). However, I do not like 2NR conditionality (i.e., “judge kick”) ever. Make a decision.

• Perms and theory always remain a test of competition (and not a voter) until proven otherwise by the negative by argument (see above), a near impossible standard for arguments that don't interfere substantially with other parts of the debate (e.g. conditionality).

• Perm "do the aff" is not a perm. Debatable perms are "do both" and "do cp/alt"(and "do aff and part of the CP" for multi-plank CPs). Others are usually intrinsic.

Critiques:

• I think of the critique as a (usually linear) disad and the alt as a cp.

• Be sure to clearly impact your critique in the context of what it means/does to the aff case (does the alt solve it, does the critique turn it, make harms inevitable, does it disprove their solvency). Latch on to an external impact (be it "ethics", or biopower causes super-viruses), and weigh it against case.

• Use your alternative to either "fiat uniqueness" or create a rubric by which I don't evaluate uniqueness, and to solve case in other ways.

• I will say upfront the two types of critique routes I find least persuasive are simplistic versions of "economics", "science", and "militarism" bad (mostly because I have an econ degree and am part of an extensive military family). While good critiques exist out there of both, most of what debaters use are not that, so plan accordingly.

• For the aff, figure out how to solve your case absent fiat (education about aff good?), and weigh it against the alternative, which you should reduce to as close as the status quo as possible. Make uniqueness indicts to control the direction of link, and question the timeframe/inevitability/plausability of their impacts.

• Perms generally check clearly uncompetitive alternative jive, but don't work too well against "vote neg". A good link turn generally does way more than “perm solves the link”.

• Aff Framework doesn't ever make the critique disappear, it just changes how I evaluate/weigh the alternative.

• Role of the Ballot - I vote for the team that did the better debating. What is "better" is based on my stylistic criteria. End of story. Don't let "Role of the Ballot" be used as an excuse to avoid impact calculus.

Performance (the other critique):

• Empirically, I do judge these debate and end up about 50-50 on them. I neither bandwagon around nor discount the validity of arguments critical of the pedagogy of debate. I'll let you make the case or defense (preferably with data). The team that usually wins my ballot is the team that made an effort to intelligently clash with the other team (whether it's aff or neg) and meet my stylistic criteria. To me, it's just another form of debate.

• However, I do have some trouble in some of these debates in that I feel most of what is said is usually non-falsifiable, a little too personal for comfort, and devolves 2 out of 3 times into a chest-beating contest with competition limited to some archaic version of "plan-plan". I do recognize that this isn't always the case, but if you find yourselves banking on "the counterplan/critique doesn't solve" because "you did it first", or "it's not genuine", or "their skin is white"; you're already on the path to a loss.

• If you are debating performance teams, the two main takeaways are that you'll probably lose framework unless you win topical version, and I hate judging "X" identity outweighs "Y" identity debates. I suggest, empirically, a critique of their identity politics coupled with some specific case cards is more likely to get my ballot than a strategy based around "Framework" and the "Rev". Not saying it's the only way, just offering some empirical observations of how I vote.

Harker 2013-2017 (debated policy all 4 years, 2A for the last 3 years). Currently a senior at Rice University (not debating).

Updated before ASU 2021 to gear my paradigm more towards LD now that I rarely judge policy.

please put me on the email chain - molly dot wancewicz at gmail dot com

Online Debate:

I'll say clear once if I can't hear you but not beyond that because I don't want to miss even more of what you're saying. Record all of your speeches locally - if there's some kind of error/issue I will listen to the recording but will not allow you to re-give or re-do your speech. It would be excellent if you could have your camera on during the entire debate (at least CX and prep!) but I know everyone has different situations so if you can't/don't, I won't hold it against you. Please no prep stealing or other shenanigans that take advantage of online debate.

Arguments:

I think LD = short policy.

Theory - I have a higher threshold than most judges for voting on theory. I am not interested in hearing you throw out a bunch of random theory shells and see what sticks. There needs to be significant in-round abuse for me to vote on theory. Not wanting to engage with the aff is not the same thing as abuse. My threshold for abuse is probably slightly lower for cheating counterplans like consult, add-a-condition, object fiat, etc. I will literally never vote on an RVI.

Phil - I am not a good judge for a phil debate. I evaluate debates using the offense-defense paradigm, so I will be a much more effective judge if you read your argument as a kritik with an alt, or even as a DA, rather than as a traditionally-structured NC. At bare minimum you need to explain how your NC means that I should evaluate the debate and its offensive implications but I will be unhappy.

Framework - I default to util unless told otherwise.

Negative Strategy - Splitting the 2NR is almost never a good idea. Will definitely affect speaker points.

DAs and Case - I will be really really happy if this is the debate I'm judging :) Everything is fair game - politics and spinoffs, elections, topic-specific DAs, etc. Technical case vs. DA debates are great and proficiency here will have a significant positive impact on speaker points. I have a higher threshold on voting for neg arguments that aren't contextualized to the aff.

Nontopical affs - I will admit that I'm neg-leaning in the nontopical aff (k aff) vs. topicality (framework) debates. I find topical version of the aff arguments very persuasive. Fairness is a less compelling topicality/framework argument to me, but I would still vote on it as a net benefit to the TVA. I think k affs need to have an advocacy of some sort and be related to the topic.

Kritiks - I am reasonably familiar with the basics (security, cap, colonialism, etc) and a lot of identity arguments. I am much less familiar with high theory/postmodern stuff. Regardless of the author, though, contextualization to the aff is extremely important to me in the kritik debate - at the very least, the 1NC should include one specific link card. I find generic kritiks that aren't contextualized very unpersuasive. I think most k alts are implausible/prohibitively vague and/or don't solve the link - I find CX pressing the plausibility and details of the alt really effective. In addition, I am often very willing to vote on case outweighs and/or case solves the K given that these arguments are well-explained in the 2AR.

Counterplans - Need to have a solvency advocate. I like specific counterplans and I think DA+CP is a great 2nr, but I'm not a fan of cheating CPs (see theory) and I'm pretty aff-leaning on the theory question for these.

Topicality (vs policy affs) - I’m willing to vote on T. Even if your violation is bad, I’ll vote on tech in the T debate (within reason obviously)

Don't be rude - If you're mean to your opponent or partner (if applicable) your speaker points will reflect that.

If I happen to be judging PF:

Impact comparison is really important at the end of the debate - please don't make me do it for you.