Merritt,+Candice

My philosophy and perspective on debate has changed over the years. I began policy debate in middle school in the St. Louis Urban Debate League and continued sporadically in college until my sophomore year at Emory. My roots have gone from "stock issue" debates to "plan focus" to now also embracing critical/performance style debates. I am an academic/educator at heart and I am very politically and emotionally invested in issues related to race, class, gender, sexuality, ability, and equity in general. This means I am familiar with feminist theory (various varieties), critical race theory, and queer theory. As such, if a debate encompasses any or part of these issues, my ears do perk up more. Nevertheless, I try to be a very fair judge by being objective as possible. Yet, here are some more of my thoughts on specifics and caveats of debate:


 * Framework: ** At a fundamental level, I see debate as a communication activity designed to teach participants how to understand problems of the world and how to discuss their potential solutions. As a competitive activity, the winner of a debate either proves or disproves the desirability of a proposed advocacy or policy option. Such substantiation occurs through evidentiary support which for me includes formal scholarly research, personal experience, music, and art. If you have a different framework of debate, that’s okay. Win it. Be persuasive as to why it should be preferred. If you debate traditional policy where it is all about Aff advantages, counterplan/disads, solvency deficits, magnitude/timeframe/probability, etc, that’s okay, too. But note: “any risk” of your “100% extinction” scenario from your politics disad may very well not outweigh the more probable systemic aff advantages (i.e. racism, violence, sexism, inequality, etc).


 * Flowing: ** I do it. A LOT. Sometimes I even flow cross-x. This means I am technical. Meaning, if the 2AR was awesome and may have won the debate, but the 2AC did not look anything like it, (although painful) I will probably default to “no new in the 2” and “protect the 2NR.”


 * Speed: ** (For JV debaters) I am all about quality over quantity. I need all individuals to be clear, even at the expense of not reading all the cards you want. If I cannot understand you, then my flow will reflect the lack that I heard.

**Kritiks:** I like to listen to them (please see above about political investments). I, however, do not like ambiguity or any argument that is unclear. If you want me to vote on them, you must win your framework. You must also EXPLAIN the whole argument. This means I want you to articulate the link(s), implications, and alternatives. I want you to be persuasive. Specificity is critical. For example, I enjoy when Negs utilize the 1AC and cross-x to get the aff to link harder. I do not enjoy floating PICs or when it is finally clear what the kritik is by rebuttals. By that point, I am more interested in other issues in the round (DAs, case turns, etc). **Theory:** I admit that I am not the biggest fan, but I know theory has its place. You can win on it, but you need to spend time on the issue. I hate rounds where both teams just read their blocks and leave it at that. If you are going to go for I, then put in the time and energy to hash it out as to what ground or education was lost. How would’ve the debate been different if a particular argument was or was not ran. Thus win the link and impacts and why that matters more than the other team's.


 * Topicality: ** Definitely has its place. I think I am more privy to reasonability arguments because it’s all about ground. If the Neg has plenty of viable options to say against the affirmative, then topicality is not very persuasive to me. If the Neg proves that the aff kills some kind of topic specific education and particular kinds of clash, then the Neg is getting somewhere on T. For aff teams who arrives to the round not wanting to talk about the resolution, I do find it hard to reconcile that desire with an opposing team who needs ground to clash and talk about the resolution. At the very least, I want to listen to your criticism as it relates to the resolution.


 * Counterplans ** : If you are running PICs, I hope the Net Benefit is clear and significant because I am not very privy to these. I will listen to them and if Affs mishandle or concede, then you are more likely to succeed. If Affs call you out on them, impact, and explain the issue, then you better get to RANT-ing.

Although, some bias exists, this does not mean you should not run what you want. Debate is full of contention and possibility. Just remember to impact, explain, and be persuasive. If you do this well, you will get the win from me.