Huther,+Elizabeth

Affiliation: La Crosse Central High School

Background: Merrill High School Debate 2003-2006 (primarily policy), third year judging policy debate 2010-Present. I am six years out of debate (currently a senior at the University of Wisconsin - La Crosse).

Paradigm: I consider myself a "stolicy" judge, with traditional emphasis on stock and policy issues. To clarify, I am the most interested in Inherency, Solvency, Significance, and Dis/Advantages. I am only interested in Topicality arguments if the affirmative plan is blatantly un-topical.

To begin each round, I present my list of views and preferences. They are exactly as follows:


 * Cards which are read must be interpreted and relevant to the plan clearly. Any card read without interpretation will be considered invalid, so choose carefully. Overall, I value quality over quantity. I would prefer to hear 7 exceptional cards with accompanying arguments than 17 cards that you are attempting to rush through. I feel that debate promotes logical thinking, and I am more interested in what you think and how you analyze the card than what the card says. That said, the other team has full access to reading the cards you present to check the validity of your argument.
 * Speed: I am strongly opposed to speed. I feel that, in addition to logical thinking, debate promotes strong communication skills. I do not feel that speaking quickly in an interview or in a class is acceptable, and therefore, is unacceptable within my round. As a communication minor, I am only looking to help you grow in skill and strengthen your chance to win my vote. Overall, if I can't understand you, I can't flow with you, and you lose a lot of speaker points and ultimately the round.
 * Off-Case Arguments:
 * Preference for disadvantages and counter plans rather than topicality arguments kritiks. If you are running a kritik, I expect them to be within the 1NC. If they are not, I will not consider them when weighing the round.
 * Disadvantages are fantastic. Link, uniqueness, bring, and impact should be clearly outlined.
 * If a counter plan is presented, it must include text, be non-topical, be mutually exclusive, and have net benefits.
 * No open cross ex. Cross examination is to be used as a time for clarification, not to create an argument to bring up in a constructive. I usually do not flow cross ex, as it is a time for seeking clarification myself. Tag teaming is not allowed, and speaker points will be deducted if I feel is any sign of abuse from it.
 * Finally, I favor objective arguments and hard evidence. I do NOT like subjective arguments or attempts to persuade at all. I do not care about what my "future children" may go through, or what my life will look like in fifty years.
 * Road maps are required.
 * Splitting the neg block is fine, and new arguments in the 2NC is also fine.
 * WEIGH THE ROUND. Reiteration of most important arguments and what should be pulled through is vital within rebuttals.
 * Speak loudly and clearly, with appropriate inflection and passion. Being confident in yourself is sometimes one of the most important components in persuasion.

Best of luck to you and your partner!