Smith,+Suzanne

Coaching Experience: Roosevelt High School - Sioux Falls, SD - Assistant Coach, 2014-present Harrisburg High School - Harrisburg, SD - Novice Policy Coach, 2013-2014 The Met School - Providence, RI - Coach, 2003-2004 Feinstein High School - Providence, RI - Coach, 2002-2003

Additional Debate Experience: National Association for Urban Debate Leagues - Chicago, IL - Director of Research and Evaluation, 2009-2011 Rhode Island Urban Debate League - Providence, RI - Coordinator, 2004-2006 Lincoln High School - Sioux Falls, SD - policy debater, 1998-2002

Education: University of Chicago - Chicago, IL - PhD (ABD) in Sociology, 2012 University of Chicago - Chicago, IL - MA in Sociology, 2007 Brown University - Providence, RI - AB in History and Sociology, 2006

Comments: I've spent the last decade+ working to increase access to and participation in debate because I think it's a uniquely educational activity. Debate opens minds and opens doors. I think that opportunity should be available to as many people as possible.

I see debate as an educational game that lets debaters exercise agency not only in debating resolutions or policy, but the framework of debate itself. How often in the rest of our lives are the rules of the game so malleable? I keep an open mind, so take the debate where you want to, but know that when it comes to framework debates, I want to hear warrants and explanation, not just tag lines. In fact, in general you should know that I have only recently returned to regular coaching and judging after spending almost 10 years behind the scenes with only an occasional chance to sit in on a debate. So please don't assume I will follow every technical argument or catch every implied nuance //unless you explain it and offer warrants//.

Disadvantages - Go crazy and run what you want. Politics is a-ok. Link debate is super important, and so is impact comparison/framework.

Topicality - I don't vote all that often on topicality. If you plan to go for T, you're more likely to get my vote if you take the time to slow down (I'll try to keep up, but flowing T is tough) and give thorough warrants and explanation. The single word "education" or "abuse" is //not// a reason for me to vote on T.

Counterplans - Fine with me. But as a reminder, when it comes to counterplan theory, the technicalities of conditionality, perm theory, and the like, please slow down and explain, explain, explain. Don't be scared: I will understand you if you explain things well. But I will not fill in warrants if all you're offering is tag lines or single-word abuse arguments.

Kritiks - I know a lot of the kritik literature pretty well from years studying and teaching sociology (e.g., I taught Marx and psychoanalytic theory at the University of Chicago for years). But what I don't know as well is the way the literature has been interpreted and applied in debate. So as in the rest of the debate, I will be able to follow your evidence just fine, but when it comes to how the kritik functions in the round, the framework under which I should evaluate the kritik or case, and technical theory arguments, warrants and explanation are essential to persuade me.

Performance - I'm totally open to performance. As a sociologist, it's very natural for me to think about the implications of in-round actions and interactions, the role of the state, agency and structure, and so on. But again (do I sound like a broken record?), you need to explain how all of these ideas function within the debate round and with respect to the ballot.