Hart,+Whitney

=**Whitney Hart (University of Pacific)**=

Experience: I have been around some form of debate since 2003. I debated policy in high school for two years; in college, I debated LD four years and parli for a semester at Missouri Southern State University. And I’ve been coaching/judging in some capacity since 2009.

In general, run whatever you want. As long you as explain how the position accesses my ballot, I will vote on it. Debate is a game. Be strategic to win. The following information is about my general judging philosophy, but I am willing to suspend my own preconceived notions to vote where the debaters tell me to vote. These are my defaults.

Please do impact calculus. I have found myself having to weigh issues in such a way that it gives me a headache, so do it for me to make my decision easy. I tell debaters to “write my ballot for me.” What I mean by that is make it very clear how the impacts stack up in your favor. I am really tired of hearing ridiculous impact scenarios without internal links. If your impact is global nuclear war, you’d better tell me how you get there and it had better make sense. I am more likely to vote on probability than magnitude if you neglect your internal links.

Speaker points: I award these based on how well you present yourself. If you are excessively rude, your speaker points will reflect that.

NFA-LD Rules: I think the rules kill the evolution of debate and tell judges to do silly things like vote debaters down for “rapid-fire delivery,” which shifts focus from the purpose of the activity—to win arguments. I don’t care if you read full cites. I don’t care how quickly you speak (I will keep up) as long as you don’t sacrifice clarity to speed. I don’t care if the negative claims they have “won” a stock issue. I want a good, substantive debate. That being said, I will vote if you run a “speed bad” procedural or the full cites procedural and win it. I just have never heard procedurals about upholding the rules that I have been inclined to vote for. I would. It just hasn’t happened.

Procedurals: I love them. Specification arguments regarding funding, enforcement, agent, etc. are great, but I prefer they be resolution-specific and the negative must explain how that particular specification was critical to their ground. I do not require in-round abuse to vote for procedurals, but it is helpful, since most arguments about specification come down to questions of solvency. Topicality: I do not require in-round abuse to vote on topicality in LD. I view topicality as an issue of competing interpretations. I have never heard a compelling RVI. And there is no such thing as being “reasonably topical.”

Criticisms: I was not a K debater, but that doesn’t mean I haven’t voted for them; however, a clearly articulated alternative is a must and Ks can be permed, making them terminally non-competitive. To win the K in front of me, you have to win the framework and the alternative. Do not assume that I know the same things you do about what your specific author says. Explain the thesis of their argument to me and explain why your criticism accesses my ballot. Critical affirmatives: I will listen to them, but I will also listen to arguments about why your critical affirmative isn’t topical.

Counterplans: are conditional unless otherwise specified. Consult counterplans are probably not competitive. Counterplans should be held to the same standards of solvency as the affirmative.

Evidence: I will vote on well-warranted analytical arguments. One of the benefits of doing research all year on one topic is that you have better general knowledge regarding that topic, increasing the quality of your analytical arguments. But if you say “nuh-uh,” to a piece of evidence, I’m not voting there. Obviously, the focus should be quality of evidence rather than quantity. Read your opponent’s evidence during prep time. Find out who their author is. Make claims about the quality of their evidence compared to yours. But tell me why that quality is important.