Thomas,+Maggie

Maggie Thomas Samford University  Background: I debated for three years in high school with my first year in public forum and my following two in policy. My senior year I was the Missouri policy state champion and NFL nationals qualifier and I am currently a member of the Samford policy debate squad.

Generally, I think that debate should be a place to discuss ideas. In front of me, you should probably do the style of debate that you are most comfortable with. Tell me what the roll of my ballot is and be explicit with framing the debate. I default to a policymaker paradigm, but I am open to whatever you tell me to do. Please tell me what to do! Tell me where to vote and why. If you don't do this I will easily vote on a dropped theory argument, permutation, or other small argument. Don't assume I will do any work for you.

I am most knowledgable about policy style arguments. DAs, CPs, topicality are all fantastic. If you're going to run a kritik, don't assume I know what you're talking about and explain the link arguments to the fullest extent possible. You should also know how to correctly pronounce your authors name. If you don't, I will laugh at you. If you are running a non-traditional affirmative, I am probably not the judge for you.

Things I will probably not vote on: intrinsicness, aspec (or any kind of -spec, for that matter,) consult cps, timecube, ashtar, advocating a permutation.

Conditionality is probably good (1 CP and 1 K is fine) International fiat is probably bad. Topical counterplans are probably bad. State counterplans are probably good and definitely predictable on a domestic topic. The aff should probably be topical. On T, I will default to reasonability, but I am definitely persuadable that competing interpretations are good.

The 1AR is a constructive speech.

As for impact calc- do it. I generally think timeframe is the most persuasive part of impact calculus. We can only die once, right?

I really don't want to see your cards after the round. You should explain your evidence (which you should definitely have) to me well enough for me to vote on it without reading it myself. It is also your responsibility to call out the other team if their evidence is horrible.

As for speaker points: Being funny is great. Being mean is horrible. I have zero problem with tanking your speaks if you are rude to your opponents or your partner. Personal attacks have no purpose in debate. Excessive cursing is unnecessary. If you are going to use strong language, do it sparingly and effectively. I think that CX is one of the best parts of the round- use it and use it well. Great questions and great responses will be rewarded. I will say "clear" twice if I cannot understand you. If I still am having trouble, I will drop my pen. If I didn't hear your argument, it is not my fault. I am often a very readable judge. Paying attention to me is in your best interest. Don't steal prep- I watch closely for it.

Also, no nudity. Please.