Johnson,+Melanie

**Melanie Johnson**

 * Updated November 8, 2014:**
 * Lately, far too many debate rounds are no longer educational or appropriate for a high school forum. Debate about the resolution. If you're aff, you must read a topical plan to win my ballot. My ballot is only a method of voting for the team that won the debate round. The insertion of words into a debate speech does not an argument make; you must state a clear claim, suppoted by data and it must be thoroughly warranted. Since it seems to be popular to choose to use Glenbroook North as an example of an "evil rich white school," you should know that I am married to Michael Greenstein, the director of debate at Glenbrook North.**

Old Philosophy Below: Updated September 2011

Background - I am the Director of Debate at West High School in Iowa City. (I have been at West since 2008.) As a college student at the University of Iowa, I worked with Dowling (West Des Moines, IA) and LeMars (IA.) I debated for four years in high school and a year in college.

Counterplans/Disads/Case Debate – This would be my idea of an "ideal" debate round. I'm much more familiar with a lot of this literature and thus feel more comfortable evaluating these debates.

Critical Arguments – Contrary to "popular belief," I do not hate the K. Yes, it's true they're not really “my cup of tea” and I'm probably a better judge for a "straight-up policy debate", but if this is your thing and you’re good at it, then I'm probably an okay judge for you. (Honestly, I find myself voting neg on the K more than I would like to/more than many of you would guess.) Keep in mind, though, I'm probably not as well-versed in the literature as you are, so avoiding lots of jargon, especially if it something other than Security, for example, would be a wise decision. I tend to find specific links (e.g. - evidence that refers to plan action) much more persuasive than "you use the state" or "you don't challenge x, y, z", etc.

Topicality – I usually find myself evaluating T debates in a framework of competing interpretations, although I imagine I could be convinced that you are reasonably topical. “Impact calculus” should happen on topicality debates too e.g. predictable ground is more important than education (or vice versa.) and/or an explanation of why your interpretation is better for debate than the other team's interpretation and pointing to the negative (potential and/or in round) consequences of your opponents interpretation. I often find myself voting affirmative on topicality because I think the neg's T violation probably just arbitrarily limits out the aff. I generally don't find arguments such as T is exclusionary or genocidal all that persuasive.

General - I wish 2NR's and 2AR's included more even-if statements. It makes my job a lot "easier." Don't assume your'e winning every argument, because when you're not and you're not doing this type of debating, you leave it up to me to decide which is more important. I don't enjoy being //that// interventionist. I wish debaters focused more on the big picture and put more emphasis on key arguments, as well. It sounds cliche, but tell me a story. Quality > quantity. And evidence comparison is good. Please do it.

Theory - I find myself erring neg on most theory issues - conditionality is good, //within reason// and I love a good PIC. I think the legitimacy of running a counterplan that is a long list of 500 things to sever out of any potential aff solvency deficit argument that could be made and isn't grounded in the literature, though, are another thing. "It's hard being neg" doesn't justify this, in my opinion, but most affs let the neg get away with it.

Speaker Points – A 28 is pretty average for me; if I give you more points than that you've probably impressed me. Acting as though you are enjoying yourself (typically personified through maturity, respect for your opponents, humor when appropriate, etc.) generally tends to result in higher speaks. Doing the things that I find annoying (which includes being unnecessarily mean or rude) tends to decrease speaker points. I evaluate quality of argumentation (by that I mean quality of explanation and argument development, etc.) and c-x skills as well as technical skills when giving out speaker points.

Paperless - If you are, that's fine/great. West is paperless and I think it' s a practice that should be encouraged. It is important than everyone has access to the evidence read in the debate. Please transfer files as quickly as possible, but I don't plan to take prep time for this process.

Speed - I enjoy quick, clear, persuasive delivery and I can flow relatively fast debates. That said, I think many high school debaters have abandoned many of the traits that make a speech persuasive. Slow down a bit, emphasize key arguments, pause between cards, don't read evidence in a monotone buzz, etc.

If you have any questions, don’t hesitate to ask me before the round or via email melaniesue.johnson@gmail.com.