marisaxheka

Debating at the University of Michigan, debated at Seaholm High School.

__**A few things I should note first:**__ 1) Be civil during your debate. I really hate it when partners argue throughout the whole debate. Even if you are behind in the debate you will be more likely to get good speaks if you are nice.

2) Arguments should have a claim, warrant, and implication.

3) A dropped argument almost always = a true argument. The only exception is if the original argument did not include the requirements in #2, in which case I might give the team that dropped the arg some leeway in hedging against an entirely new warrant or implication.

4) Finally, all of the below is just personal preference. Do what you are good at and everything will be fine.

__**Specifics:**__
 * DAs** – In-depth politics rounds are great. The more specific the DA the better. The legitimacy of intrinsicness arguments is debatable.


 * Kritiks** – K debates are a double-edged sword. They can be off-the-charts great if there is a coherent link, impact, and alternative articulated on the line-by-line, or mind-numbingly awful if the 2NC is just one giant overview that talks about random things for a while. Don’t assume I know what a kritik says. If you are worried about being able to explain your kritik given this you probably shouldn’t run it yet.


 * Framework** – While theory might be part of this, I think both teams should be reading cards in a good framework debate. Winning frameworks will solve most of the other team's offense while providing for their own argument's legitimacy. If the negative wins the argument that their K is grounded in topic literature then the aff will need to win some (carded) reasons why an exclusive focus on policy debate is good or they will probably lose the race to the theoretical middle.


 * CPs** – I love a good CP debate. See below for theory questions.


 * Theory** – I’ll say this first – I view theory through competing interpretations and will not vote based on personal prejudice. That being said here are some of my general opinions:

-Conditionality is cool, but it gets less cool as the number of worlds presented and the wackiness of the general negative strategy increase. Dispo bad is a really tough sell. -Perm theory = almost never a reason to reject the team. This is not definite, however. I can be persuaded that a certain perm or things like multiple perms are voting issues, I just don't find those arguments very persuasive. -Consult/Condition/Delay CPs – I think these CPs are absolutely devastating to aff ground unless the solvency evidence is case-specific. I won’t necessarily vote these CPs down on theory, but I am very receptive to the perm. Simply put, I think that the perm to do the counterplan is 100% legitimate and that severance based on time is stupid. -Performative contradictions – two examples: 1) Neg reads a states CP and a kritik of capitalism that links to the CP. Perfectly fine in my opinion, but debate it out. 2) Neg reads a kritik of war impacts and reads a DA with a war impact. Probably a bad idea. I will err aff here, so be ready for an uphill battle if you do this on the neg.


 * Topicality** – I don't really like T debates. If you are equally winning substance and T and you are trying to decide whether to go for either T or a DA, for example, I’d prefer you go for the DA. I’ll err to competing interpretations because reasonability is completely arbitrary, but debate it out. I think that the terminal impact to most T debates is ground, but the internal links to this should be explained as how they relate to the limits debate. Make distinctions about topic-specific education and predictable ground and you should be golden.


 * Other procedurals** (ASPEC, OSPEC, and the like) – I’ll vote on these, but I think a prerequisite to the neg winning these debates is that they win a resolutional basis. You may give a flawless 2NR on ASPEC but if you don’t convince me agent ground is key to the topic you probably won’t win.


 * Critical affs** – I enjoy them. I prefer affs that defend a topical plan text, but I could be persuaded otherwise in a particular circumstance.


 * Performance** – I have very limited experience with this and I don't see myself being a very good judge for it. I like debate (a lot), so if the focus of your argument is "traditional debate bad" or if the only difference between your aff and neg speeches is whether you say "vote aff" or "vote neg" at the end of them, I should probably be pref'd low.


 * Case** – do it. I think the most likely way a negative team will lose is by dropping one or multiple case advantages. Engaging the aff on the case debate is a must if the negative wants any chance of winning without a CP.


 * __Random:__**
 * Time issues** – I don't like people stealing prep. Cross-x begins the moment the speech is over. I'm not going to take prep for you to walk up to the podium before your speech, for setting up tubs, or for reading your roadmap, but if your partner is prepping while you do this I will deduct an appropriate amount of prep time and deduct speaks.


 * Be funny** - I'm usually pretty tired at debate tournaments so keeping me amused and interested would probably be good for you.


 * Paperless –** I understand that many teams are just transitioning to paperless now, so I will give an appropriate amount of leeway for jumping and tech issues. However, if you try to use this to cheat, you'll lose speaker points (a lot of them). Sidenote! If you are paperless you shouldn't be on your computer when your partner is about to give a speech because it looks like you're stealing prep.


 * New in the 2NC** – I don’t care one way or the other, but it is almost never strategic. I think that new DAs, CPs, or Ks in the block 1) means I give the 1AR leeway in answering every argument in the debate and 2) justify new 1AR answers, maybe even on old flows.


 * Speed (1-10)** – 9ish (if you are clear you should be fine). That being said, I have a fairly low ability to understand unclear debaters. I will yell clear if I can't understand you.


 * Speaker points** – 27 is my average, 28 means you are on the borderline of being able to clear, 28.5 means I think you should break, 29 means I think you deserve a top-10 speaker award, 29.5 means I think you are in contention for a top-5 speaker award, 30 means you are the best speaker I have ever heard. Low-point wins are rare and usually indicate that one team dropped a small argument on a theory flow or that the 2AC and 2AR were good but the 1AR couldn’t cover.


 * Overviews, not underviews** - overviews should frame the debate, not "sum up/do impact calc if I have time."


 * Stop speaking when you are done making arguments** - there are few things I hate more than debaters who just stand up and repeat themselves for 5 minutes.

If there is anything you still have questions about then just ask me before the round.