Viles,+Emily


 * Viles, Emily**

School Constraints: Janesville Parker

Experience: 4 years debating as a policy debater in high school, recently began judging policy.


 * Preferences**

I default to a stocks paradigm. I like a good debate about the plan itself and whether or not it will solve and why. The Affirmative plan is ultimately why the debate round is happening, and I prefer that be kept in mind. With that being said, I will listen to and judge well-articulated and linked advantages, disadvantages, kritiks, etc. as they may be effective in the round.

Speed: I firmly believe that unless a debater can use speed while maintaining clarity, speed should not be used. If I cannot understand or follow what is being read, I will not flow it. If the speaker is stumbling on their words while trying to read fast, it will take a toll on their speaker points. If speed is used, I prefer that after every card, there is a brief summary of what the card was saying and what it pertained to in the round.

I allow open cross-examination ONLY for clarification purposes. For example, your opponent has been asked a question by your partner and wants your partner to rephrase the question. You may jump in and do so. You MAY NOT ask all the questions for the remainder of the cross-examination. You MAY NOT answer a question for your partner unless you are providing a statistic, number or phrasing that your partner may not remember. THAT IS IT! The ability of the speaker is also judged during the cross-examination.

Topicality should only be run if the Affirmative plan is untopical. If topicality is an issue, I need to know WHY, HOW and WHERE the plan is or is not topical. Definitions, standards and thorough assessment of T should be given. DO NOT DROP T! If T is an issue, and one team drops it entirely, I will give T to the opposing team.

If I am asked to ‘throw something out’, that doesn’t mean I will. Give me a reason why it shouldn’t be considered in the round.

I think an interesting and educational debate consists of a few arguments debated thoroughly rather than throwing out a bunch of different points with minimal explanation or discussion on it.

I do not have a lot of experience with Kritiks. That being said, I will listen to them, provided that the team offers real- world impacts that are convincing and well argued.

I will not vote for a topical CP.

I am open to debate theory so long as it makes sense and doesn’t dominate the round.