Cook,+Mariah

Conflicts: King High School

I debated in LD for four years on the local and national circuit, mainly competing in Florida invitationals. I attended VBI, CDI, and CBI. I qualified to NSDA and/or NCFL my sophomore, junior, and senior years, and cleared at every Florida tournament.

//As a first-year-out judge, I feel like it's my duty to correct all the wrongs I've had committed against me by bad judges, so I'm pretty flexible. The debate space is yours and it isn't my job to tell you what I want to hear. I want you to tell me what you want me to hear.//

//Please ask questions if there's anything you're unsure about. Even if you're sure, please ask questions anyway because talking about my paradigm makes me feel important <3//


 * Update for Blue Key 2016: currently giving 30's for whoever can give me the longest yeah boy ever (at least 31 seconds)**

=The Basics (TL;DR version)=
 * Idc how fast you speak
 * If I can't catch the author name you're SoL
 * I drop my pen because I'm clumsy, not because I've stopped flowing
 * Ask your opponent BEFORE the round if flex prep is okay
 * Philosophical debate is cool
 * Plan/CP/DA debate is cooler
 * K debate is coolest
 * Tricks are awesome if you can make them work
 * Don't run theory or T on novices/anyone who obviously won't get theory
 * RVI's exist but not for an I meet
 * I do not make ANY assumptions so say //exactly// what you mean
 * Do not stop the round for any reason unless it is an emergency
 * I call for evidence 100% of the time so pls don't pack up right away

=Long Version= Speed is fine. Speed is preferred. It keeps me engaged in the round and guarantees that I'll spend more time flowing instead of staring at you and waiting for you to say something worth writing down. I'll yell "clear" as much as I need to without docking speaks. For the love of God, //slow down on your author names.// I don't care if you enunciate it to me like I'm 5. I promise I won't get offended or feel like you're patronizing me. If I can't catch the author name, I can't extend the argument if you want me to, and if it doesn't extend, I can't vote on it.
 * Speed**

__Default: my presumption is arbitrary (read more below), comparative worlds, K before theory.__ I will not assume anything, fill any holes, or jump to any conclusions for you. Say exactly what you mean. Extensions and their impacts need to be clear. That goes for anything, especially Theory. Winning a violation doesn't mean you automatically win the theory debate if you don't tell me why the violation is bad. Also, I will not vote on anything that says something that is generally believed to be bad (rape, genocide, terrorism) is good. Don't try to get me to vote on an argument that will make everyone in the room uncomfortable.
 * Voting**

I give speaks based on overall execution and strategy. In my head every debater is a 28 until otherwise proven.
 * Speaks **
 * Here's a list of things that will get you high speaks:
 * Sitting down early.
 * Weighing. A lot.
 * Starting the 2nr and 2ar with an overview.
 * Cracking jokes.
 * Heading farther left when responding to a K.
 * Engaging a critical position as opposed to running theory on it.
 * Dominating in CX.
 * Three S's: Shade, Swag, and Sass
 * Bringing me caffeine not in the form of a soda


 * These will get you low speaks:
 * Being disrespectful
 * Making reference to private, out-of-round conversations
 * Ad hominem attacks and microagressions
 * Excluding someone who is clearly new/newer to the activity
 * Poor signposting.
 * Using skep to avoid engaging in K's and narratives


 * CX and Prep**
 * I might be paying attention during CX or I might not but I'll take your word for it if you say "my opponent stated in CX..."
 * Flex prep is only okay if both debaters agree. Personally I always said no because my brain needed a break to regroup and strategize during the round and I couldn't do that if my opponent was still hounding me with questions after their 3 minutes was up
 * Feel free to collapse your cx time into prep.
 * I'm not one of those people who's strict about how long it takes to flash. I don't see why the time it takes to flash should be counted as time out of your prep time or speech time, unless you take an unreasonably long time to flash

I don't really know what else to call it, but this is just your bread-and-butter Value/Value Criterion debate. Obviously the winner is the one who has the most/better evidence that impacts to the winning standard. Don't get so caught up in your contention level impacts that you forget to establish a weighing mechanism for the round. //I spent a disgusting amount of time independently and pretentiously studying philosophy in high school so I probably know that author.//
 * Philosophical Debate**

LARP wasn't really my thing as a debater, but I find it entertaining when done well. If you're gonna LARP, LARP hard and take it all the way
 * Plans/CPs/DAs**

I was a hardcore K debater for the better part of my career, and K's are the most likely to keep me interested. Well-written K's paired with well-versed debaters are the quickest way to a 30 in my book. What I mean by well-versed is that you can engage your K in the opponent's case instead of just telling me why affirming/negating is inherently good/bad with no mention of the particular harms perpetuated by your opponent. As Dave McGinnis once said, "A K without an alt is just a non-unique disad"
 * K Debate**

I have never ever seen a performance case but I'd love to hear one if you're confident in your case. I used a lot of narrative K's during my career, and they were probably my most well-written cases. Feel free to use a narrative, but if you're using a narrative from someone other than yourself, you **HAVE** to give it some lip service in every single speech, even if you're losing terribly. Say something to be respectful. I often used narratives from people who committed suicide, who were raped, abused, or otherwise faced terrible tragedy and hardship. I find it incredibly rude to kick out of a narrative after the first speech because your opponent loaded it down with defense or has 18 fully-warranted reasons why narratives are bad for debate. At that point, you're exploiting someone else's trauma to win a debate round and that is not okay. All that being said, a ROTB is, of course, necessary
 * Performance/Narratives**

//I'm down for a good non-topical K, performance or narrative and have voted for them in the past, but that comes with the trade-off of your opponent getting more leeway in their case for why your arguments are bad for debate//

// __Default: meta-theory before theory, no RVI's, competing interps, drop the arg, text of the interp, no new 2AR theory.__ //All T is theory but not all theory is T. Disclosure theory is not a thing. I don't know what "frivolous theory" means (save for the arguments listed at the end of my paradigm). Running theory/T on novices/small school debaters is a dick move and if you keep going for Theory/T when it's clear that your opponent has no idea what's going on, you're definitely losing speaks. If you're enough of a jerk about it, I'll drop you. Arguing only against a bad T interp is sufficient to have it thrown out even if you clearly violate and don't argue the standards (this is me being bitter about my loss in Sunvite elims. I might get over it eventually). I'll keep theory and T on the same layer of the debate until you tell me not to. RVI's are a thing, but not if all you do is give an I meet. Winning a violation is not sufficient to win your T/Theory shell. "Drop the debater" arguments are generally not compelling, but I'll give them a fair chance. Meta theory is fun
 * Theory/T**

A good, well-defended tricky case will get you very high speaks. However, running tricks on a novice/small school debater will get you very low speaks. A prioris are cool, Contingent standards are cool too. Skep was my go-to neg strat for the entirety of my senior year. I'll vote for it unless it's against a K or narrative. Please put spikes at the end and put them all together if you want me to catch them. If you number them I'll be even happier
 * Tricks/Skep**

I have only ever voted on presumption once in two years of judging novices during the second half of my high school career. In the case of presumption, I will honestly vote for who I personally thought was the better debater. I'd rather err on the side of a hardworking and talented debater having a better chance in elims over presuming aff because of time skew or whatever.
 * Presumption**


 * Before the Round Starts You Should**
 * ask your opponent whether or not they want to do flex prep
 * ask your opponent if they want to flash, pass pages, or read over your shoulder
 * find out if there are any particular topics that make you opponent uncomfortable.
 * run your strat by me if my opinion on it is not expressly stated in my paradigm
 * ask any lingering questions. I love talking about myself and love talking about my paradigm


 * After the Round You Should**
 * sit tight and not pack up your laptop because I always call for evidence just to make sure the argument I'm voting for matches the author I think wrote it. //However, this does not mean that just because I call for your evidence I'm going to vote for you. Just chill//.
 * Ask me questions if you agree with my decision
 * Ask me questions if you disagree with my decision
 * Refrain from arguing with me. I can't change my decision after I sign the ballot and I probably won't admit to judge intervention/making a bad decision if you get combative
 * Ask your opponent to delete your files from his computer if it really means that much to you. I recommend encrypting files with passwords to avoid people hiding copies of your speeches from you


 * Miscellaneous Things You Should Know**
 * I have never understood condo and I don't intend to learn
 * If the debate is too messy on a particular layer than just give me a reason to ignore the layer so I don't feel like I'm intervening when I ignore the layer anyway
 * A quizzical expression on my face means "I do not understand what you are saying," not "I do not like what you are saying"
 * Nodding means "You're over-explaining yourself. I get it. Move on"
 * The only things that matter in my decision are what is said between the moment both debaters enter the room and the end of the 2AR


 * Arguments That I Will Not Vote For (including but not limited to)**
 * "Aff must spec a plan" theory when not accompanied by a CP
 * Negatively worded interps bad
 * All theory against the aff is a counterinterp to implicit interps that exist in the AC
 * Rape/Genocide/Terrorism/etc. good (Please note: If your skep arg says that nothing is morally impermissible but you never actually say any of the preceding things is good, you're free to decline to answer if your opponent immediately jumps on the "So all these terrible things are okay??" Line of questioning)
 * Speed theory
 * AFC

//At the end of the day, I'm trying to make this as painless of an experience as possible for everyone involved. Feel free to email me if you need anything. I check my email obsessively and my average response time is about 5 minutes. You can reach me at mariahlcook@gmail.com//