Gregg,+Mary

Name: Mary Gregg, Science and Engineering Magnet HS, Dallas, TX My email is gregg.marye@gmail.com Edited Summer 2017

If any of this philosophy is unclear, please ask me questions before the debate. I'm happy to elaborate on any of it :)

Background: I debated for three years at OPRF high school near Chicago. I also debated for four years at Northwestern University. Since then, I have coached at OPRF HS, Glenbrook North HS, Stephen F. Austin HS, and Niles North HS. I am currently a mathematics teacher and debate coach at the School of Science and Engineering Magnet High School in Dallas, TX. I have worked as an instructor at the University of Texas Institute of Forensics for the past four summers. In high school, I read mostly critical arguments (Foucault, capitalism) and in college I was predominately interested in more traditional policy debate. As a coach I try to help my students with whatever they are interested in.

Some general feelings about debate: 1. I am a teacher. Please keep the round educational and constructive. I find debate to be a great opportunity for students to learn and grow. DO: engage the other team to the best of your ability (this may require you to slow down or adapt your normal style) and read arguments that you find intellectually stimulating. DON'T: Backfile check, read arguments you think are cute/funny (examples include consult Harry Potter, collective suicide CP, etc. - it's not cute, it's not funny).

2. Do what you do best! I have now judged enough UIL rounds that I am just as comfortable voting on structural inherency as I am on a complicated PIC or performance argument. DO: adapt your normal style to someone who may not be an expert in your literature. DON'T: radically change everything you do to please me.

Some other things you might want to know: Speaker points: Do your own CX. Be nice to the other team. Make sure you flash evidence quickly and only provide a speech document with evidence that you have read. Clearly indicate when a card is being marked. Do not steal prep - when documents are being flashed you should NOT be talking to your partner, typing, reading off of your computer, etc. I will give you one warning, after which time I will reduce your speaker points. Split the block. Jokes/puns are very appreciated, and I really love when debaters are experts/wonks about their arguments - show off your knowledge!

Speed of Delivery: I expect to hear every word of your evidence. If you need to slow down in order to achieve this, please do. I can generally handle fast rates of delivery, though it helps if you have summary statements prior to launching into big, dense evidence or arguments. I debated NDT/CEDA in college so I can handle that kind of speed, though I am very content watching a UIL-style round. Remember at UIL there is a prohibition against rapid delivery, and regardless of my comfort level with speed, I will be adhering to that rule.

Non-traditional styles: Evidence comes in many forms (traditional debate cards, narratives, music, performances, etc.). Regardless of the form of your evidence, make sure you are applying its content appropriately and explaining its connection to important aspects of the debate. I generally judge mostly policy debates in DUDA and UIL, so I'm behind on developments in most literature bases, keep that in mind as you choose your arguments and present them. UIL paradigm: I have to check a box so I check "policymaker" (the options are tabula rasa, policymaker, stock issue). I honestly don't know much about what that means but my understanding is that I generally default to pursuing the best policy option to resolve a problem. I don't choose tabula rasa because I am not a blank slate, as I am pretty left-leaning in my political beliefs and I also just won't vote on nonsensical arguments (see above regarding consult Harry Potter). But I can be convinced to disregard policymaking all together if you present a compelling alternative framework/role for the judge. I have judged stock issues debate, and I try my best, but I'm pretty new to it/didn't debate that way or coach that style so make sure to pause occasionally and remind me of the ramifications of your argument.

Particular arguments/random things: I am fine with topicality, disadvantages, kritiks, counterplans. I tend to find functional competition to be trivial, but can be persuaded with good evidence/arguments. I default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise. Probably a good idea to stick to 1 or 2 advocacies on the negative. I will not judge kick unless told to do so by the negative. I will vote on no risk of a disadvantage. Just because an argument is "dropped" does not mean you automatically win the debate - you must extend and explain that argument and why it is a reason for me to vote for you. Conclusion: Have fun, tell me why you win the debate, and be kind to your partner and opponents.