Fitzgerald,+Serena

Serena Fitzgerald

I did LD for four years in high school (graduated in 2015) and I currently do NPDA style college parli.

I'm fine with spreading, plans, counterplans, kritiks, performances, etc. Debaters are the ones who decide what debate should look like. If you make me laugh you get 30 speaks.
 * Overview:**

In your last rebuttle speech, you should talk about a) what framework I’m using to evaluate the round and b) what impacts are the most important under that framework to make my job easier for me. I don't think theory is inherently a priori, especially if there's a critical framework in the round that says epistemology or ontology comes first. Theory shells need a clear interpretation or violation and some kind of impact if I am to evaluate them, but I will still evaluate shells without the clearly defined four part structure the best I can.
 * General** – make sure you understand your case. Cards are great, but if you can’t extend and explain the internal warrants, you probably won’t be winning the arguments they contain - just saying "extend the smith card" isn't enough to get me to do all the work of cross-applying the warrants in it to answer their claims.
 * Traditional Cases** – Your value and criterion are of massive importance in the round. I evaluate the criterion first; this is the lens through which I view offense. If the winning criterion is "minimizing structural violence" and your only impact is nuclear war, I will just conclude your impact doesn't matter (if you don't find a way to make it about structural violence somehow).
 * Theory** – I view theory as a check on abuse. Since theory itself is sometimes abusive, especially in LD, I’m open to RVIs.
 * Plans/** **Counterplans** – Super fun. Condo is probably good but I'll still vote on a shell on it.
 * Kritiks** – I am familiar with most K literature, or at least aware of it. I've spent most of my college career doing critical debate, and I'm probably much more open to "esoteric pomo bullshit" than the average judge.
 * Speaker points -** Probably ableist, racist and sexist. If you quote Judith Butler, you get an automatic 30. Beyond that, I just award them on creativity/ technical skill.

Overall: have fun and enjoy the debate. If there’s a new, weird, interesting strategy you want to try out, I’d love to see it and I can help with feedback if you’d like (also, making the debate interesting certainly won’t hurt your speaker points). Best of luck!