Hi guys!

There are a few things I really enjoy/look for when judging a WSD round:

• good speaking, shown through articulation and annunciation
• respectful behavior towards opponents in and out of round
• maintenance of important signposts during speeches (make sure I know why what you're saying is so important!), including carrying those important points down the bench. However, if a point gets dropped, please don't repeatedly bring it up in round.
• engagement with and questioning of your opponents case, ask a couple of POIs during each speech

I did World Schools all throughout high school and love the flexibility, creativity, and scope of the event. Remember to have fun!

Jan 18 2025

I will not base my decision on the flow of the debate if the debaters dont flow.

Love to be on the chain.... sfadebate@gmail.com

LD---TOC---2024

I'm a traditional leaning policy judge – No particular like/dislike for the Value/Criterion or Meta-Ethic/Standard structure for framework just make sure everything is substantially justified, not tons of blippy framework justifications.

Disads — Link extensions should be thorough, not just two words with an author name. I'm a sucker for good uniqueness debates, especially on a topic where things are changing constantly.

Counterplans — Counterplans should be textually and functionally competitive but I'm willing to change my mind if competition evidence is solid. I love impact/nb turns and think they should be utilized more. Not a fan of ‘intrinsic perms’.

Kritiks — I default to letting the aff weigh case but i'm more than willing to change my mind given a good framework/link push from the negative. I’m most familiar with: Cap, Biopolitics, Nietzsche, and Security. I'm fine voting for other lit bases but my threshold is higher especially for IdPol, SetCol, and High Theory. Not a fan of Baudrillard but will vote on it if it is done well.

K Affs — I'm probably 40/60 on T. If a K aff has a well explained thesis and good answers to presumption I am more than willing to vote on it. A trend I see is many negative debaters blankly extending fairness and clash arguments without substantial policymaking/debate good evidence. I default to thinking debate and policymaking are good but I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise absent a compelling 2NR.

Topicality — Big fan of good T debates, really dislike bad T debates. I don't like when teams read contradictory interps in the 1NC, you should have good T evidence, and I like a good caselist. Preferably the whole 2NR is T.

Theory — Not a fan of frivolous shells but i'm willing to be convinced on any interp given a good explanation of the abuse story. I default to In-round-abuse, reasonability, and have a high threshold for RVIs.

Phil — As an Ex-Policy Debater, my knowledge here is very limited. I'm willing to vote on it if it's very well warranted and clearly winning on the flow. But in a relatively equal debate I think I will always default to Util.

Tricks — Don't

edited for LD 2022-3

I have not judged a lot of LD recently. I more than likely have not heard the authors you are talking about please make sure you explain them along with your line by line. Long overviews are kind of silly and argumentation on the line by line is a better place for things Overview doesn't mean I will automatically put your overview to it. If you run tricks I am really not your judge. I think they are silly and will probably not vote for them. I have a high threshold for voting on theory arguments either way.

edited for Congress

Speak clearly and passionately. I hate rehash, so if you bring in new evidence and clash you will go farther in the round than having a structured speech halfway to late in debate. I appreciate speakers that keep the judges and audience engaged, so vocal patterns and eye contact matter. The most important thing to me is accurate and well developed arguments and thoughtful questions. For presiding officer: run a tight ship. Be quick, efficient, fair, and keep accurate precedents and recency. This is congressional debate, not congressional speech giving, so having healthy debate and competition is necessary. Being disrespectful in round will get you no where with me, so make sure to respect everyone in the room at all times.

Edited 20-21

Don't ask about speaks you should be more concerned with how to do better in the future. If you ask I will go back and dock your speaks at least 2 points.

Edited for WSD Nats 2020

Examples of your arguments will be infinitely more persuasive than analogies. Please weigh your arguments as it is appropriate. Be nice, there is a difference between arrogance and excellence

Edited for PF 2018-9

I have been judging for 20 years any numerous debate events. Please be clear; the better your internal link chain the better you will do. I am not a big fan of evidence paraphrasing. I would rather hear the authors words not your interpretation of them. Make sure you do more than weighing in the last two speeches. Please make comparison in your arguments and evidence. Dont go for everything. I usually live in an offense defense world there is almost always some risk of a link. Be nice if you dont it will affect your speaks

Edited for 2014-15 Topic
I will listen to just about any debate but if there isnt any articulation of what is happening and what jargon means then I will probably ignore your arguments. You can yell at me but I warned you. I am old and crotchety and I shouldn't have to work that hard.

CXphilosophy = As a preface to the picky stuff, I'd like to make a few more general comments first. To begin with, I will listen to just about any debate there is out there. I enjoy both policy and kritik debates. I find value in both styles of debate, and I am willing to adapt to that style. Second, have fun. If you're bored, I'm probably real bored. So enjoy yourself. Third, I'm ok with fast debates. It would be rare for you to completely lose me, however, you spew 5 minutes of blocks on theorical arguments I wont have the warrants down on paper and it will probably not be good for you when you ask me to vote on it. There is one thing I consider mandatory: Be Clear. As a luxury: try to slow down just a bit on a big analytical debate to give me pen time. Evidence analysis is your job, and it puts me in a weird situation to articulate things for you. I will read evidence after many rounds, just to make sure I know which are the most important so I can prioritize. Too many teams can't dissect the Mead card, but an impact takeout is just that. But please do it all the way- explain why these arguments aren't true or do not explain the current situation. Now the picky stuff:

Affs I prefer affs with plan texts. If you are running a critical aff please make sure I understand what you are doing and why you are doing it. Using the jargon of your authors without explaining what you are doing won't help me vote for you.

Topicality and Theory- Although I certainly believe in the value of both and that it has merit, I am frustrated with teams who refuse to go for anything else. To me, Topicality is a check on the fringe, however to win a procedural argument in front of me you need specific in round abuse and I want you to figure out how this translates into me voting for you. Although I feel that scenarios of potential abuse are usually not true, I will vote for it if it is a conceded or hardly argued framework or if you can describe exactly how a topic or debate round would look like under your interpretation and why you have any right to those arguments. I believe in the common law tradition of innocence until proven guilty: My bias is to err Aff on T and Negative on Theory, until persuaded otherwise.

Disads- I think that the link debate is really the most significant. Im usually willing to grant negative teams a risk of an impact should they win a link, but much more demanding linkwise. I think uniqueness is important but Im rarely a stickler for dates, within reason- if the warrants are there that's all you need. Negatives should do their best to provide some story which places the affirmative in the context of their disads. They often get away with overly generic arguments. Im not dissing them- Reading the Ornstein card is sweet- but extrapolate the specifics out of that for the plan, rather than leaving it vague.

Counterplans- The most underrated argument in debate. Many debaters don't know the strategic gold these arguments are. Most affirmatives get stuck making terrible permutations, which is good if you neg. If you are aff in this debate and there is a CP, make a worthwhile permutation, not just "Do Both" That has very little meaning. Solvency debates are tricky. I need the aff team to quantify a solvency deficit and debate the warrants to each actor, the degree and necessity of consultation, etc.

Kritiks- On the aff, taking care of the framework is an obvious must. You just need good defense to the Alternative- other than that, see the disad comments about Link debates. Negatives, I'd like so practical application of the link and alternative articulated. What does it mean to say that the aff is "biopolitical" or "capitalist"? A discussion of the aff's place within those systems is important. Second, some judges are picky about "rethink" alternatives- Im really not provided you can describe a way that it could be implemented. Can only policymakers change? how might social movements form as a result of this? I generally think its false and strategically bad to leave it at "the people in this debate"- find a way to get something changed. I will also admit that at the time being, Im not as well read as I should be. I'm also a teacher so I've had other priorities as far as literature goes. Don't assume I've read the authors you have.

They/Them pronouns, -0.5 speaks every time you refer to me as she or he. If you can't get it right, just use judge or my name (Kait). Easy as that.

Put me on the email chain please: nash.kaitlyn04@gmail.com

Experience

Sophomore Comm major.

2023 NSDA Student of the Year Finalist

In high school, I debated for the Hendrickson Debate team. I did Policy my freshman year and PF for 3 years.

I went to Nationals for World Schools three times, in 2023 we made Octofinals and in 2022 we made Trips, in 2021 we didn't break.

I participated in Extemp (foreign and domestic) all 4 years of HS. Made it to Nats twice.

I've dabbled in Oratory and Info.

My biggest rule for all rounds - be respectful or I'll down you (ie: no racism, sexism, ableism, ageism, homophobia, transphobia...)

PF specific:
Flow Judge, Tech over Truth

General: I would like to see weighing and ballot directive language in your rounds. Tell me where you're going or else I won't be able to write it down, hurting your chances of winning. Also, reading tons of contentions (4+) with no link chain and then trying to persuade me to vote on it is a dumb idea.

Theory and Ks in PF: I'm okay with theory, but if you run it, run it well. As a personal belief - I don't think Ks belong in PF unless they are formatted correctly- there is not enough time and most of the teams running Ks are doing it as a strategic tool for winning against other people who are unfamiliar, not because they genuinely believe in the advocacy of the K. This is BAD. Please don't run a K unless you genuinely care about that topic AND you are a) willing to go all in on the K (because that is what must happen in order for your advocacy to work and for you to have enough time to sufficiently run it) and b) you have READ THE LITERATURE of the K. If you just got something from an older team member and/or saw it on a wiki, then it isn't for you. Read the lit.

Framework: If you provide a f/w, then it must a) have an actual function in the round as it relates to your case and b) you have to carry it throughout the round. I will not vote for f/w that you drop after constructive. If another team does run f/w, you either have to answer it or link in. If you don't and they extend it all the way through, they will win.

Spreading: Hey, you do you. However, if you are not being clear I will say CLEAR and if after one warning you do not fix it, I will stop flowing.

Cross X: Look at me, not the other person because I'm the one you're trying to persuade. Be kind, but firm. Don't take all the time...I'll down your speaks.

Speaks

30-29: Great job! I generally like your speaking

28.9-28: Good job, you could use some drills though

27.8-27: Some blips that you need to work on. I'll give in round feedback specific to your speaking.

26.9-26: You definitely need some work. You were either pretty aggressive or couldn't get through a speech.

25.9-25: You were super aggressive/offensive and I most likely had to stop the round.

Policy Specific

As mentioned before, I've been in Policy before, but I'm just now getting back into it. That being said...

Speed:

Go as fast as you want, but send speech docs to me and your opponents if you know you're going to spread (more so if you know you're not the most articulate). Slow down a bit for the 2AR and 2NR. That being said, I will flow what is spoken in the debate, not the speech document.

Speaking:

Borrowing from Aly Mithani here:

" -I will call you out if you are blatantly stealing prep and it will hurt your speaker points.
-For paperless teams, I do not run prep time for saving/flashing the speech unless this time starts to become excessive or it becomes evident that prep is being stolen.
-It drives me crazy when debaters are disrespectful to each other. There is no reason why competitiveness needs to turn into aggression. Treat the debate space like a classroom.
-Another pet peeve: debaters who do not seem to legitimately enjoy what they are doing. Debaters who go through the motions are usually the ones that end up with the lowest speaker points from me. Even if you are not keeping up with the technical aspects of the debate, if you remain engaged and committed throughout the debate, I will definitely feel more comfortable with giving you higher speaker points."

Overall:

I will vote for anything that isn't against the biggest rule at the top of the paradigm. As long as you have sufficient offense and defense, run it. I think the best way to respond to everything is going line-by-line and grouping responses.

I will work on buffing up this part of my paradigm, but I'm looking to keep judging Policy so I can do so.

Extemp

Borrowing from Audrey Fife "I look for confident, clear speakers who know how to sound and appear like they belong in the room. I love to see competitors that remind me how much I miss doing speech! Wow me with your content and keep my attention with your presentation."

I think that extemp is such an important event and you should treat it as such! Try to make at least 6 minutes and give at least 5 sources. When I did extemp, I went for the following outline, which I think is really great for making your speech digestable:

AGD: Attention Grabber!

Link: link it into your speech

BKD: Give background of the subject you are talking about (usually put a source here)

SOS: why this matters for the judge/people all around the world. Why should be care?

Q: question

A: answer

Preview: State your 3 answers

Each point I gave had 2/3 sources and I think thats a great strategy. Don't just cite the sources, though, incorporate them into your speech. I think jokes are an great way to relate to your judge, but please don't cringe me out with a bad/sexist/homophobic/anything joke.

Somebody who is able to fill their speech with pauses instead of UHHH and UMMM if more preferable than the latter competitor. Make eye contact, make me laugh, make me emotional, and you got a good chance of getting top 3 in the room.

Other than that, good luck and have fun! If you have (respectful) post round questions, feel free to email me! I prefer this to in person post rounding as I get very flustered.