I did PF Debate for my last 3 years of high school. I have done LD before and understand it well. I have competed in Parli Debate/Congress. I am currently competing on the OU Debate team for the college policy circuit. This means I am well-versed in all styles of debate. In terms of speech events: I have done DEX, FEX, OO, and Prose.

Things I will be looking for:

- Speaking: I appreciate elegant but assertive speakers. No spreading. Emphasizing points, especially if you really believe them, goes a long way. I want to see passion, or at least how well you can fake it.

- Professionalism: Do not disrespect your opponent. Say please and thank you. Ask for follow-up questions, don't just take them. You can talk down to your opponent's arguments without condescending them.

- Be Clear: By this, I mean you need to make it very clear why your side is the stronger one. Crystallize your arguments. The summary speech is a key opportunity to do this.

- Carry Arguments: Push your arguments through the round and do not drop any of theirs. I flow. Defend your case/cards, don't let them bring up an argument without refuting it (and continue to refute throughout the round).

- Impact Calculus: The main thing I, along with almost every other judge, will cast a winning ballot for. tell me WHY I should care. Like okay "yes this random thing is happening and it's probably bad", but how bad is it? And why? Make me care. Make it urgent. That is what a strong impact is. Make me feel like I literally have to vote for your side or it's OVER.

- Speaking: I appreciate elegant but assertive speakers. No spreading. Emphasizing points, especially if you really believe them, goes a long way. I want to see passion, or at least how well you can fake it.

I did LD and PF in high school and a bit of policy debate at UCO. I am familiar with all types of debate.

It's been a little while since I've been around policy debate, but I should be able to keep up fine. I think the most important thing to me is being organized. Slow down and clearly tell me evidence taglines / authors, keep things easy for me to flow.

Email - lizbrenneman99@gmail.com

So I guess I'll start off by letting you know that I did PF and I am studying to be a coach now! Woo, yay-sies.

That being said, onto my actual paradigms:

First of all: I will almost always vote based on impact weighing; this means at the end of the round I will use any empirics to make my final decision(usually this ends up being numbers unless it is a debate where numbers are not a possibility on one or both sides). To follow impact weighing, I cannot weigh your arguments if they don't have proper links so pls and thx have links and make them obvious!

Secondly: If you are doing a speech event I will make sure you have all parts of a speech(intro, body, conclusion, sources- I have things I look for in each section) and then I will go off of speaking ability, pretty straightforward.

As a note for debates! I promise I keep track of time! I stop flowing arguments when time is up but if I let someone go a little long it's because I'm giving them just a second to figure it out!

You got this girly-pops!

I’ve been debating competitively for over 4 years. I’m a freshman at UCO.

PF: I’m tech over truth and will flow any argument no matter how crazy it may seem. With that being said, it needs to be convincing enough on the debaters end. Framework should be a huge part of the round and you should tell me why your contentions flow under your framework and why I should prefer your framework. If neither teams convince me on their framework, I’ll probably vote on impact calc. I’m fairly confident with any speed, but if ur speaking so fast that you lack clarity then you should probably slow down.

LD: Pretty much the same thing but swap framework with value/value-criterion. Explain how your criterion links to your value and why your value is more important than the oppositions. Also explain how your case flows across both values.

I dislike debaters reading as fast as they possibly can, take your time and make your arguments clear.

I will not flow every word of Rebuttal. If there is something specifically you want me to keep in mind emphasize it.

Make the round interesting. If you can appeal to me (or any judge), your arguments will be seen clearer in the round.

I will primarily vote for you if you if I buy your warrants and links because without these your contention is nothing.

Nextly is impacts. If I buy a warrant that has no impact, whats the point? Show me how your contention is relevant.

Novice as both a Judge and in Debate.

Last Updated 12/5/2021

Ishmael Kissinger
Experience: 3.5 yrs for The University of Central Oklahoma 02-05 (Nov/JV & Open)
14 yrs as Coach @ Moore High School, OK
Policy Rounds Judged: Local ~10
Policy National/Toc - 2
LD Rounds Judged Local: 0
LD National/TOC - 0

PFD - Local = 0

PFD Nat Circuit - 0

Email Chain: PLEASE ASK IN ROUND - I cannot access my personal email at school.

*Note: I do not follow along with the word doc. I just want to be on the chain so that I can see the evidence at the end of the round if necessary. I will only flow what I hear.

LD -

Just because I am primarily a policy judge does not mean that I think LD should be like 1 person policy. Small rant: I am tired of us making new debate events and then having them turn into policy... If you are constructing your case to be "Life & Util" and then a bunch of Dis-Ads you probably don't want me as your judge. If you are going for an RVI on T in the 1AR you probably don't want me as a judge. I don't think that LD affs should have plan texts. If I were to put this in policy terms: "You need to be (T)-Whole Res."

Affirmatives should have: a specific tie for their value to the resolution. An explanation on how their Criterion(a) operates in context of the value and the ballot. Contentions that affirm the whole resolution.

Negatives should have: a specific tie for their value to the resolution. An explanation on how their criterion(a) operates in context of the value and the ballot. Contentions that negate the whole resolution.

CX

I tend to consider myself a flow oriented judge that tries to be as tab as any one person can be. Absent a framework argument made, I will default to a policy-maker/game-theorist judge. I view debate in an offense-defense paradigm, this means that even if you get a 100% risk of no solvency against the aff, but they are still able to win an advantage (or a turned DA) then you are probably going to lose. You MUST have offense to weight against case.

Generic Information:

Speed is not a problem *Edit for the digital age: Sometimes really fast debaters are harder for me to understand on these cheap computer speakers.

T & Theory need to be impacted with in round abuse. As the debate season goes on I tend to err more toward reasonability than I do at the beginning of the year. This is usually because as the debate year goes on I expect Negative teams to be more prepared for less topical arguments. This is generally how much judges operate, they just don't say it. I typically don't vote on potential abuse, you should couch your impacts on potential abuse in very real-world examples.

Please make impact calculus earlier in the debate rather than just making it in the 2nr/2ar

Kritiks are not a problem, but I am not really deep into any one literature base. This may put you at a disadvantage if you assume I know/understand the nuances between two similar (from my point of view) authors. **If you are going for a K or an Alt in the 2NR but are unsure if the aff is going to win the Perm debate and you want me to "kick the alt" and just have me vote on some epistemic turn you're only explaining in the overview of the 2NR you are not going to enjoy the RFD. If you think it's good enough to win the debate on with only a :30 explanation in the overview, you should probably just make the decision to go for it in the 2nr and kick the alt yourself.

When addressing a kritikal aff/neg I will hold you to a higher threshold than just Util & Cede the political, I'll expect you to have specific literature that engages the K. If this is your strategy to answering K teams I am probably not your "1."

I don't have a problem with multiple conditional arguments, although I am more sympathetic to condo bad in a really close theory debate.

CPs are legit. Just like judges prefer specific links on a Dis-Ads I also prefer specific Counter-Plans. But I will evaluate generic states/int'l actor CPs as well.

Dispo = Means you can kick out of it unless you straight turn it, defensive arguments include Perms and theory. (My interp, but if you define it differently in a speech and they don't argue it, then your interp stands)

DAs are cool - the more specific the link the better, but I will still evaluate generic links.

Case args are sweet, especially on this year's (2019) topic.



Personal Preferences:

Really I have only one personal pref. If you are in a debate round - never be a jerk to the opposing team &/or your partner. I believe that our community has suffered enough at the hands of debating for the "win," and although I don't mind that in context of the argumentation you make in the round, I do not believe that it is necessary to demean or belittle your opponent. If you are in the position to be facing someone drastically less experienced than yourself; keep in mind that it should be a learning process for them, even if it is not one for you. It will NOT earn you speaker points to crush them into little pieces and destroy their experience in this activity. If you want to demonstrate to me that you are the "better debater(s)," and receive that glorious 29 or maybe even 30 it will most likely necessitate you: slowing down (a little), thoroughly explaining your impact calc, clearly extending a position, then sitting down without repeating yourself in 5 different ways. If you opt to crush them you will prob. win the round, but not many speaker points (or pol cap) with me.

As a judge, my priority is to evaluate the debaters in front of me as fairly as possible, regardless of personal beliefs. I have experience with LD, PF, and Congress. You may choose Trad or Tech just be reasonable and if you plan on speaking over 250wpm+, you should send a speech doc to ensure all points are evaluated.

I have three absolute rules for round:

1. Do not be condescending /disrespectful to your opponent(s) unless you feel like losing speaks and possibly the round. Passion and energy are great, disrespect is not.

2. Do not misrepresent/power-tag your evidence. You will lose the point and possibly the round, depending on the severity. This includes misusing, statistics.

3. Do not mischaracterize your opponents arguments or actions in round. Ex: insisting they dropped arguments they clearly addressed. You are welcome to tell me when you believe an argument should flow to you, although I may not agree.

I have no bias regarding theory, K's, ect. that don't break tournament rules. However, you should approach the round as if I know nothing about the argument you are running. That being said, if it doesn't make sense, I will not vote on it, you must prove your argument should win you the round. Ex: Saying your opponents shoes are a voter does not make it so.

Some specific information:

On weighing: I do not automatically way in "layers" or give preference to any specific type of argument, you need to prove that your approach takes priority.

Kritiks: Generally acceptable.

Non-T K's: If you are reading a K that is not topical It needs to be excessively relevant to the round. By that I mean that you telling me that I should vote for you because debate is sexist, will not sway me. However, If your opponent called you a sexist term or used sexist language to undermine you, I will absolutely evaluate a Kritik that concludes your opponent is bad for the Debate space. A topical statistic that you find offensive, is not reasonable ground for the K, facts and logic are critical to a meaningful debate.

Topical K's: I am fine with topical Kritiks, however you must prove that you earned the vote. I'm unbiased, so I'm perfectly comfortable evaluating anything you would like to run, Cap, Anthro, Fem, Pess varieties (I have a very high threshold for link and impact evidence here), and whatever else you can think of. As long as I believe you proved it, and you defend it, it is acceptable.

Note: A large volume of illogical evidence will not outweigh well-reasoned logic.

Theory:

Friv: Do not waste my time with shoe theory, formal dress theory, apple-laptop theory, or any other variation, unless both teams decide they just want to have some fun.

General Theory: For theory to carry a round it needs to outweigh the original purpose of debate. If there is a legitimate offence and you are enriching the round or the debate space by reading the shell, go for it, even if I don't love it, I'm willing to vote on it. You will need to do a lot of work to prove that the offense was egregious enough to warrant me dropping substance on the ballot.

CI: Counter-interps always get offense unless the team reading the shell proves that their opponents were theory-baiting, or does significant work to prove that they should get a 0-risk timesuck for whatever reason they choose. If you are willing to win on the shell, you should be ready to lose on it.

Reasonability: If you prove the offence had no effect on the round, and that you have a bright-line to fairness, I will drop the shell.

Plans: Plans are fine if the rules allow them.

Tricks: I think these de-value debate.

Performances: I have no experience with these, but if you prove its a reason to vote, I'll vote on it.

I have 4 years of PF experience, so with that being said, I usually go off impact calc judging rounds. To properly weigh evidence I need proper links. be clear and concise, and if you're unsure, make it painfully obvious. break it down as if I have no idea what's going on. Don't drop major points/ evidence, it could make or break the round.

I enjoy a team who clearly knows their material and knows their cases/blocks like the back of their hand.

I have zero tolerance for bullying in rounds. Be respectful to everyone in the room and have fun!

Big-Picture Stuff:

I will listen to and evaluate basically anything that's not blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, etc, so long as it contains three things: a claim, a warrant, and an impact. If it’s missing one of these, it's not an argument, and I'm unlikely to vote for it. More than anything, I believe that the end-goal of debate as an activity is education, meaning that I will reward in-depth analysis, specific research, and clever tactics. It also means that I will react negatively to shallow warrants, generic evidence, and cheap, "gotcha" strategies. Furthermore, I will NOT tolerate rude or abusive behavior toward teammates, opponents, spectators, or myself, and will begin docking speaks the moment it happens.

Specific Arguments:

Topicality/Framework-I have a relatively high threshold for T/FW, and have tended to default to reasonability in the past. Winning T arguments need to be specific to the affirmative, reference specific ground lost, and do substantive impact work in terms of my ballot. Proving topical version of the aff is also likely to earn my ballot.

Counterplans/Disads-Under-highlighted evidence with one or two word tags (e.g. "Nuclear war" or "Extinction") will be given relatively little weight at the end of the round.

K's/K Aff's-K's were my favorite arguments as a competitor, but will likely lose my ballot if executed poorly. Depth is much more important than breadth in these debates, and even generic links should be contextualized in terms of the aff.

Theory-Most of the time it can be resolved by rejecting the argument, not the team. If you feel that it’s important enough to stake the round on, please put it on a separate flow.

Conditionality-If you do not think there's a chance you'll go for an argument in the 2NR, DO NOT READ THAT ARGUMENT. Sandbagging teams with 8+ small, underdeveloped, and/or contradictory arguments is uneducational, uninteresting, and incredibly frustrating to judge. In these instances I am highly likely to vote for 5 minutes of condo in the 2AR.

Brock Spencer – brock.spencer.bs@gmail.com

Experience/Background - Current Assistant Coach @ Casady HS (OK) (6 Years), Judge Experience (9 years), Debated 1 year CEDA/NDT @ UCO , 4 years of National Circuit HS @ Tulsa-Union (Ok), Former Assistant Coach @ Tulsa-Union HS (Ok) (1 year)

TLDR – You do what you do best, and tell me what to do with my ballot as your judge. Write the RFD/ballot for me in the last speech. I’m down with voting for most things that have a well-warranted reason and impact behind it. Offense/Defense Paradigm. I flow meticulously and enjoy line by line debates. Debate can be super fun, enjoy yourselves!

Speaker Points - I tend to heavily reward teams who do phenomenal research/ utilize evidence in comparative ways. A newer development is that I tend to reward teams who flow well, and answer arguments on the line by line especially with numbered responses. Giving your last speech off of the flow, and not reading into a laptop is a great way to have good speaks - (Also just be nice to each other. It's a competitive activity, but doesn't have to be cutthroat.)

Speed -

Go for it! Please be somewhat clear.

(LD Paradigm is below)

(PF Paradigm is further below)

-- POLICY --

Policy AFFs --

Advantages are good....10 advantages are not.

I prefer few advantages w/ specific internal link chains that don't have 8 loosely tied together scenarios begging to lose to a security K. Update your IL UQ's - it goes a long way in front of me.

Utilize your AFF vs. off case args, too many policy affs lose because they start debating on the DA/K flow ignoring, and not using the AFF to it's potential.

K AFF’S –-

AFF’s I have read haven’t defended much so I’m definitely willing to vote for these.

The aff should still defend doing something, but this is a pretty low threshold.

Vs. K's go for perms and impact turns to Alts

Vs. FW go for DA's as impact turns.

Topicality/Theory –-

Topicality and Theory are drastically underutilized. Ya'll are letting these aff teams, and CP's get away with waaaay too much. I love creative Theory/T debates. Limits are love, limits are life!

I evaluate T similar to any DA flow from offense/defense point of view, and default competing interps, but can be swayed to vote for the aff being reasonable. I reward spec interps/violations vs. an aff.

Impact out your standards/counter standards, and make spec args as to things they did in the round that harmed ground, what they could have done based on their strat, or other potential abuse. RVIs are a non-starter, and I will evaluate "K's of T".

I will vote on Condo, but the 2ac needs to be more than 10 seconds if you're going to be going all in by the 1AR. I do think the Neg is allowed to be condo most of the time unless they have done something rather egregious that you point out.

Framework –-

Neg - I'll vote on both soft FW Interps that are creative and hard line USFG FW. Either way limits/predictable ground are most useful standards to win my ballot. Limits are love, limits are life! Point out when aff is vague/a moving target as another link to these standards. Topical Version of the AFF is the easiest way to win my ballot on FW. Typically don't vote on democratic engagement/deliberation args, but not against them.

K AFFs - make sure to leverage your impacts vs. FW. If a negative drops the AFF Impacts I’m easily swayed by the argument that AFF impacts are Impact turns to the interpretation, and why their model of education is bad to begin with.

CP –-

These should have a clear net benefit such as DA or internal net benefit. Better solvency isn’t sufficient. I often find myself voting on perms so these net benefits should be articulated as reasons why the perm doesn’t solve.

Also if you want me to kick it for you if you’re losing it that needs to be clear in the 2NR.

Cheating Cps *you know who you are* - I tend to side w/ the aff on these so you'll want to allocate sufficient time to theory in the block if necessary.

DA –-

DA's are great in debate as generics to rely on, but I'm not a fan of the trend of reading one to 2 card DA's with barely any warrants highlighted. I love a good da although. Specificity is lovely! I'll still vote for your generic topic DA, but apply it to the aff in the block.

Need clear impact calc from both the aff and the neg. - updated UQ/IL UQ will be rewarded w/ speaker points, and usually W's on the ballot!!

Both teams should use comparative analysis and explain why their ! ows, is more uq, or turns the other etc.

K’s –

Background/Preferences -

I’m most familiar with this type of debate throughout high school, and college. I "hack" for Security K's that are embedded in other K's - I find that most policy aff internal link chains are garbage, and you can make them defend things they don't want with security esque arguments. The K’s I’m most familiar with are the greatest hits of dead European dudes (Nietzsche, Baudrillard, Heidegger, Deleuze), and being from Oklahoma I hear, and have read Settler Colonialism/Cap a lot. Personally believe the Fem I.R. K is drastically underutilized, but very good in debate because there's literature on everything and it's often just true.

Links/Alts -

For your link, QUOTE THE 1ACEV evidence as link analysis for a K.- You can read your "sick" Baudrillard 81 card, but in the block there should be an explanation of the link in the context of the 1AC ev and scenarios. Alts should have a clear articulation of why it solves the AFF and the links. I also find myself voting on perms b/c the neg doesn’t do a good job explaining the difference in the aff solvency and the K alt solvency world. To help beat perms the Links should be offensive – I typically won’t vote on a link of omission. An Alt should also exist. If you read a K without an alt I default to being a non-uq DA until proven otherwise. I can be convinced why my ballot generates UQ, but that needs to be explained as a type of alternative.

For AFF's answering K's -

Net Benefits to perms are vital, as are DA's to why the ALT doesn't solve all parts of the case, or separate DA's to the ALT itself.

! Turns would be great, I don't understand why debaters don't just say arguments such as HEG GOOD. Impact turns vs. K's can be devastating. Don't debate on their ground, debate on yours.

Other K Things -

I’ll vote on roll of the ballot claims and framing issues as long as there are impacts and warrants attached to those and reasons why the other side doesn’t’ access them.

Floating Piks, and Counter Perms I'm familiar with, and will vote on, but they need to be at least predictably flagged in the block.

Lastly, I enjoy clash with K debates so if someone reads a Buadrillard AFF and your NEG is to also read Buadrillard, you're probably starting off on the wrong foot in front of me.

-- LD --

Most of what I said above in policy applies to what LD is currently, but I'll add a few specific things unique to LD.

Value/Crit -

Offense to their Value/Crit would be lovely. - Winning the framing is helpful, but more debaters need to impact out why it matters.

Use your contentions as net benefits to your Value/Criterion and DA's to theirs and explain why their FW cant access/solve your impacts. I often find myself just voting on impact calc based on which contention OW's the other because the framing debate isn't articulated enough.

K's/CP's/DA's in LD? -

Sure, why not. I'll evaluate these the same as any other argument (read above in policy for specifics)

I am willing to vote for FW args on why this isn't allowed in LD as long as you have well warranted impacts/theoretical args, but tend to think these are allowed and you should have answers if they apply to the case. Most of the time your more "Traditional case" still has very well built in answers to these types of arguments too, but often debaters are overthinking it.

Contentions -

I love creative contentions in LD to justify what should or should not be debated, but open to voting for theory arguments as to why said contention is unfair etc.

Theory -

I typically err aff on theory in LD, but can be convinced otherwise.

Read above for more specific Theory in Policy Section.

Speed -

Go for it! Please be somewhat clear.

Random Info - I find myself voting for floating pics a lot in LD rounds.

-- PF --

For PF specifically, I often find myself frustrated in PF rounds by the lack of line by line answers, and proper extension of arguments. When citing evidence you should give a tagline, an author and then read the evidence. Often PF does this in many different nonsensical orders.

Clash is really important and giving impacts that are comparative to the other teams impacts will go a long way in front of me. Make sure and respond to their cases in every speech after the first speeches.

**To see how I evaluate specific arguments such as disads, cps, t, k's etc. the above sections still apply. I believe all debate eventually just morphs into policy because whenever you give students speech times they will inevitably speak faster and utilize the modern policy style. I'm not necessarily a fan of this either way, but it is what it is. I'll still vote on traditional PF cases against more progressive styles, but need warrants as to why.**

Bozho, Rachel ndezhnekas. Bodewadmi ndaw, Shishibeni ndbendagwes. Gkendasgemgek emikchewiyan. Hi, my name is Rachel, I am Citizen band Potawatomi and I work at the CPN department of education.

Pronouns: Ask, if you're curious. Otherwise call me judge or Rachel or Watson. Ask for others' pronouns in-round or default to they/them. I personally default to they/them until I'm told otherwise.

I've been coaching and competing in LD and policy since 2008. I started in middle school. In college, I debated at Central Oklahoma from 2015-16, and if you're thinking about that program or Wake Forest, ask me about why I left. I got my master's from Penn, and I coach at Holy Ghost Prep.

If you have an email chain add me: r.erinwatson@gmail.com  (Catholic League tournaments don't usually have chains but DON'T add me if you do. It's against the rules.) 

Email me about other stuff too, if you feel unsafe in round, if you want to know more about my paradigm, ask about arguments, get a better understanding of the RFD, etc. Also feel free to contact me at my day job if you would like to talk about going to college, debating in college, or translating your speech and debate experience into a college application essay!

Respect your partner and your opponents. Respect every judge, too, even if you've decided you don't need that ballot to win the panel.

NFCL top level edit- In LD I do absolutely love trad debate so please don't go full circuit thinking that's how you'll get my ballot. All the big picture points below still apply! 

Brief guide to getting my ballot (if you have 1 minute before round read the bolded on this list):

1. Be kind. Show empathy. Everyone in round is human, we are not debate robots, and it’s alright to bring your personality with you into the room. And this is #1 for a reason, kindness and recognizing our mutual humanity is the most important part of being a member of the debate community.

2. Read arguments and debate in a style that you enjoy. I like judging good rounds, and your round is almost always better if you like your argument and know it well. I have voted for poetry, and I have voted for politics DA.

3. Have a claim, warrant, and impact for every argument. I know 1ARs are hard, but you can be fast and efficient without being blippy. Don't be blippy!

4. Clash. Engagement with the other side's arguments and ideas is the one thing that makes this not a speech event. Not all arguments clash automatically! You must produce it in round.

5. Weigh all the impacts. Compare the impacts on the different sheets of paper and tell me why even if the other team’s argument is 100% true, I should still vote for you. Do this even if you and your opponent have completely different styles (i.e. trad v progressive LD, kritikal or policy based args, etc.). Don’t make me weigh things for you, chances are you won’t like the result. I am like most judges and I vastly prefer rounds where debaters tell me how to evaluate and how to write my RFD.

6. Focus on offense and framing (meaning how I should weigh or evaluate the round, or the debate's BIG question). In my head, there’s almost always a chance that the plan/alt/CP will solve. Terminal defense might be useful, and you probably can win that in front of me, but I’m much more comfortable voting for offense than defense or muddy techy stuff somewhere deep in the line-by-line.

All the below was written with policy in mind, but it applies to progressive LD as well.

Affs:

Run what you know and what you're prepped for. I will vote for almost anything.

Topicality and Theory:

I’m plenty happy to vote on topicality and theory arguments if debaters are willing to go all in and can defend that one model of debate or of the topic provides more education/learning opportunities. However, if the negative provides an overly exclusionary interpretation on Framework, they are going to have to work a lot harder to convince me that an exclusionary based model of debate is good.

AC UNDERVIEWS/THEORY (LD): Saying you get to have an RVI is not the same thing as having one... If you want one you have to tell me what the threshold is for making something an RVI and why that means I should vote on it, don't just say you get to have one. Sorry policy kids but you don't get an RVI, esp not on T.

Counterplans/Kritiks:

I generally prefer negative strategies that don’t contain a performative contradiction, like reading counterplans that link to a K of the aff. Other than that, please try to make it clear in round the ways in which your Kritik or counterplan function differently from the affirmative. Counterplans need competition and a net benefit, and k debaters should be prepared for impact framing arguments, especially in a round with a policy team. From the aff, be prepared to explain how a perm functions to achieve the net benefit/not link to the Kritik.

My K experience has mostly been with identity arguments; I know critical race theory- including afropess and set col best. I read and keep up with indigenous scholarship because I am Potawatomi (Citizen band). Yes, I am legally a citizen of this sovereign nation. Yes, I hate authenticity testing. This means I'm probably more willing to listen to speaking for others/commodification/etc. claims about why non-indigenous folks reading set col is bad than other judges might be. That Evans 15 card is probably also true of indigenous lit, sure, but Evans was very specifically speaking about afropessimism and white afropessimists.

Baudrillard, Foucault, Delueze, high theory abstract stuff, aren't my strong suit so develop good, clear, consistent explanations about your K/alt so my ballot can be clean.

I’m happy to answer debater's questions on specific issues/arguments prior to the round. I will also respond to emails after the fact if you have questions about my decisions. I try really hard to write long, detailed ballots, because I believe that even with a lengthy RFD after the round having a record is good for debaters and coaches! And also, no judge is perfect. But if you think I'm wrong, DON'T do the postrounding thing with me. Email me when you are back in school if you're still mad on Monday.