Wagner,+Michelle

Michelle Wagner – I debated at Eagan High School in Minnesota for 4 years.

Warrants – Have them. Extend them. Impact them. Weigh them. All of these are good. If you do not have warrants your argument will lose significant weight in round. Just saying “extend Goldman” is not sufficient because is not a warrant, it is a tagline. Weighing your arguments and providing me with a clear link story up through the weighing mechanism in comparison with your opponents arguments will not only improve your speaker points but also greatly improve your chance of winning. That said, although I do not have any policy background I do appreciate real-world impacts in addition to more general impacts (i.e. dehum).

Standards – Provide me with some sort of weighing calculus on how to determine the round. Arguments floating in the middle of nowhere with no context within the round mean nothing to me. Provide me a clear way to prioritize argument and make sure to weight through this standard at the end.

K/Critical/Truth-testing – I am not familiar with most critical authors or literature so if you’re planning on running a position that is heavily dependent on abstract theories be prepared to spend a lot of time explaining. Honestly, you probably shouldn’t run a K in front of me. Other types of critical arguments I’m more open to although I’m not the biggest fan of truth-testing. I like hearing new arguments and different takes on the resolution. I really do think that debate is about education and talking about different ideas is important, I just hate voting for things I don’t understand so just be very clear when explaining these arguments.

Speed – I’m fine with speed. If you’re unclear or going to fast I’ll let you know once or twice in round but other than that it’s on your shoulders to see if I’m keeping up with you.

Theory – Theory is fine to extent that it can define how the round can proceed and what arguments are acceptable. Blatant skewing of the round or absurd frameworks would be a cause for theory to be run in response, but do not assume that just because you said theory you win. You must be clear with your violation and standards and voters. However, do not throw out theory when you can respond to an argument on substance. I do not want to see 6 theory flows at the end of the round. If I hear “neg case, 4 off, aff case” there had better be a good reason why there is that many off.

Speaker Points – I award points between 25-29, with 30 as the outstanding round. If you are disrespectful, rude, offensive or unethical toward me, your opponent or other people in the room your speaker points will suffer.

I will disclose if the tournament allows but I will still leave comments on the ballot. Feel free to find me if you have any additional questions.