Roth,+Barbara

I debated policy for West High School. I placed in local tournaments, didn't get to travel much for outside tournaments. I can probably thank debate for turning me into an enthusiastic political science major.

If you can argue it well, run it. Over the course of debating, I ran arguments and cases that were straight up, K, performance, and somewhere in between. I encourage you to use analysis and logic to build strong arguments, I'm less than enthused about debates where it just gets down to cards with competing taglines that are perfect opposites without analysis on why one argument is better. If it is argued well, it will sway me regardless of whether or not I think there is truth to what you are saying. I will vote on topicality if it is argued well and especially if you can convince me there is a ground issue I must vote on. That being said, I will have a hard time believing I should vote on T if the negative is carrying substantive arguments through the rebuttals too. You lose credibility on any ground loss argument and will end up under-covering. I'm open to Kritiks, but please don't run one you don't understand or can't explain and argue. Philosophy and critical theory is fascinating to me, but don't count on me using an ounce of any knowledge of those things I might have to do work on making an argument for you. Build a story for me. You have to explain every step, from link to impact, in a convincing way and as specifically as you can. If there is an alternative presented, tell me how exactly how to weigh it. If there is no alternative there needs to be a brilliant explanation of why I must vote on the K. The more advanced the Kritik, the more you will need to break it down for me. I'm not going to vote for the team that pronounces Foucault correctly if they haven't won an in round argument. You will not dazzle me with name dropping poorly understood intellectual figures unless it's in a dope philosophy rap and even then it doesn't win the round. Theory debates are probably my least favorite debates, but you I will vote on theory if that is the debate you want to have. I would need particularly good analysis and not just some huge generic block you got at camp. Performance can work for me but you will need to convince me it is good to abandon the standard decorum of a debate round. Remember it is your round. That being said, I like to be pretty strictly flow oriented. If you can argue line by line that is definitely the way I prefer things go. Please make the most of your rebuttals. I want to hear the best of your arguments and the story of how you won the debate. I want to be told exactly where and how I should make my decision and it is in your best interest that you do this so I do not need to pick where I feel like voting. Impact calculus wins debates. An unanswered argument that the team can convince me is decision worthy will win the round. You have to convince me to reject the team. If I can reject the argument e.g. they kick the advantage you are kritiking and the case still stands I'm prepared to do that especially if I'm told to in a rebuttal speech. I encourage you to really get in to it, but if you are being disrespectful to the other team or your partner, you will get shut down. Speed is fine with me as long but you must be clear, it is in both of our interests that I have a good flow. I'm happy to clarify or answer any questions on this before the round.