Darmody,+Mary+Grace

Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart ‘13 Harvard ‘17

I did policy debate for four years at Carrollton. I’m fine with all speeds and styles of debate. The only thing to note is that I don’t judge high school rounds regularly, so you need to explain topic-related acronyms/ abbreviations. I rely pretty heavily on my flow when I judge and tend to see dropped arguments as true.

A few predispositions:


 * T:** T debates should have lots of impact comparison. I’m more amenable to reasonability arguments than most provided you challenge the assumption that limits are always good.


 * Ks:** The more specific, the better. The less you make the K about the aff, the less likely I am to buy it. My tendency is to let the aff weigh their impacts against the K unless you convince me otherwise.


 * DAs:** I love well-debated disads with lots of impact calculus. I’m unlikely to be persuaded by cheap shot politics theory unless it’s dropped.


 * CPs:** I think consult, conditions, and process CPs are illegitimate and can be beaten with either theory or perms. That being said, high-quality solvency evidence can help the neg gain back some ground on these theory questions. I love PICs provided they’re based on words written in the plan text//.//

If you want me to kick the CP for you, you need to tell me to do so.
 * Theory, etc:** Conditionality is probably good. Affs going for condo bad should provide examples of in-round abuse.

I think affirmatives should defend topical USFG action. That being said, the neg needs to win framework, just like they would any other T argument, for me to vote on it. Being able to clearly articulate (without over-relying on cards) why your vision of debate is valuable will get you good speaker points, and most likely, a win.

Clarity and connections are the absolute easiest way to get better speaker points in front of me. I tend to protect the 2NR. Anyone proven to be clipping will lose. Be respectful and have fun!
 * Random:** I love high-quality impact turn debates with recent uniqueness and turns case arguments.