Wicks,+Caitlyn

I debated 4 years at Truman High School, I am in my second year of College Debate (NDT) at Missouri State University and I coach Middle School Debate. Speed is fine as long as you are clear - slow down just a smidge for tags and authors. Then just be clear and dont clip. I will say "clear" once and then if you are still unclear I will just stop flowing and then my decision might come down to whoever I can hear. You probably don't want that. Also don't try to spread yourselves out just in order to spread out the other team. You're only hurting yourself. Don't read one million time-suck arguments like a non-legit T or Spec argument just to make the 2AC and 1AR spend time on it. Everything in the 1NC should be a viable 2NR option. Every Advantage in the 1AC needs to be a potential for the 2AR. Add-ons and new Impact Mods are fine - just be sure to actually develop your arguments. A non developed shell of a DA in the 2NC will not be a convincing 2NR and I will give some weight to new 1AR args and 2AR shifts. Evidence - I don't want to read evidence after a round, it will delay my decision and thus delay the tournament and delay your next food break. So, that being said, do a good job explaining why your evidence is good/why your opponent's is bad. I will call for cards if I do have to read them, but note, that means your speaker points may be effected. Topicality - I tend to vote for reasonability claims if they are reasonably topical. Topical version of the aff can be devestating - make sure you answer it. I am willing to vote on this argument - but explain the impact level. Why is your education good, and why is theirs bad? Disads - Explain your impact scenario. I want to know how exactly the internal link scenario happens. Don't just tell me extinction happens. Why does it happen? How? Etc. Counterplans - LOVE 'EM. However, certain PICS are ALWAYS vulnerable to the perm. Make sure your counterplan competes (hopefully in a way other than "perm links to the disad." Advantage counterplans are awesome. If the CP is multi-plank, read the text slowly so I get them all, especially if the distinguished planks are going to be essential. Also CP's should solve a lot of, if not all, of the aff. Kritiks - These are not always ran well at the High School level, but if you can run it well - go for it. Under this stipulation - HAVE A REAL ALTERNATIVE. DO SOMETHING to combat whatever it is you are critiqing. Alts that are "Do nothing" or "vote neg" or "reject the 1ac" generally don't work with me unless your alt evidence is very good at explaining (and you are good at explaining your alt evidence) why that action ACTUALLY ends what you are critiquing otherwise you're probably losing on Alternative Solvency. On that note, if your plan is to go for the Kritik as a non unique disad and kick the alt - make sure you have an impact and explain why the aff doesn't get try-or-die. Performance/Identity/Non-Traditional Planless/advocacy affs: I will listen to these. I will vote on these. However: 1. My ballot does not actually create social change - debate is debate, even if I believe in your aff I'm probably not going to start a revolution or join yours even if I vote aff - so these arguments are probably less persuasive. 2. Make sure that you do have an argument for why my ballot is important and what that means. Aside from these two things, I prefer these debates to actually be educational and informative and fun (debate is a game, an activity, and it is fun) so have fun and don't forget why you are all here. Try not to scream at each other or at me. For Identity teams, I am NOT White. I am Native American. SO please do not ever tell me that I am white, and that I am not important, or that by voting against you it is an act of White Supremacy. Follow these, and you'll be in a good position (assuming you debate the opposing team). Framework and Procedurals: Very persuasive if impacted out. Not good as time sucks. I'll get frustrated with you. Speaker Points: I don't really have a scale just yet. I start everyone at the highest (so I'm assuming a 30 or whatever the tournament has) then I keep a tally of how many times a speaker screws up or does something to anger me or is just plain stupid. Then I judge the severity of how stupid this transgression was and dock speaker points that way. No matter what, I try not to award lower than points from the highest (i.e. a 26) unless I think you should just quit debate or have a serious discussion with your coach about delivery and how to speak professionally. If you wish to have more information about your round, ballot, etc. Email me at SovietHistory2396@gmail.com. I will hold on to your flows for only a week. past that, I may not be that helpful in answering questions. All in all however, Just have fun and do your thing and I will adapt - I want this space to be welcoming and educational. So GOOD LUCK and please email me if you have any more questions. .