Siler,+Marissa

Marissa Silber Asst. Coach - Samford University Former Director of Debate - University of Florida

My upbringing in debate has caused me to believe that the affirmative should defend a (topical) plan enacted by the United States Federal Government. Does this mean you cannot read critical advantages to your affirmative? Of course not – but you should be prepared to defend a plan in which the USFG does something topical. I am much more flexible about what debaters can do on the negative since they are not tied to the resolution and defending USFG, however like most judges, I have some dispositions within debate and certain understandings that will make debating in front of me easier for you.

Impact comparison is especially important to me as a judge – time-frame/probability/and magnitude questions are all really important, but even issues such as “what is my role as a judge” and “what arguments I should give special attention to” should be addressed. However, just saying “discourse comes first,” “it’s a voter for fairness,” or “we are pre-fiat” is not enough work – explanation must be included. Having either short round overviews or specific argument overviews tend to help me in making my decision since this hopefully guarantees some comparison is occurring in the round.

I have been told by debaters that they assume I never vote on the K. Contrary to this, I have also been told (which I found particularly amusing) that when I debated I set an example of why representations critiques are important for this activity and social leaning. I would define myself to be much more moderate than the two characteristics described by my judging/debating. I do not have a deep understanding of much of the philosophical literature, but I can figure out how to evaluate most criticisms. I will try my hardest to understand your criticism, but if you are discussing philosophical ideas deeper than “the state, or capitalism is bad” you should be prepared to explain your argument, especially the specific links and alternative (if it has one). I have found myself in a dilemma several times this year over framework debates. My issue again goes to whether or not impact analysis occurs – if you win the framework debate when you are affirmative or negative, what does it mean? Does the other team lose? Does it just justify certain arguments? This needs to be clear to me!

I can be persuaded how to view theory arguments in debate based on what the debaters tell me. I do not have a strong disposition over counterplan theory, however, if you are going for a theory argument please do not just make a ton of blippy theory arguments and instead slow down a little and develop your arguments.

Read disads, read case turns, read counterplans…. I like these. Specific kritiks are much better than generic kritiks, and it is probably better if they have an alternative.

Three other comments: 1. It REALLY bugs me when both partners leave the room either while the other team is prepping their last rebuttal and/or after the debate. If both partners leave the room after the debate and are not available for me to ask for cards, I have decided I will no longer wait for both of you to return – I just will not read the evidence. I think it is frustrating when partners both leave the room while the other team is prepping and that team wants to ask for evidence – if both of you leave the room and this occurs, I will dock your speaker points, 2. Please do not steal prep – you get ten minutes of it, there is a reason preparation time constraints exist. 3. Be nice and respectful to each other – debate should be enjoyable for the contestants, judges, and audience! Good luck!