Rowe,+Shawna

__**About Me:**__ 1st year college student at the University of Missouri-Columbia. Do not debate in college but in the process of starting a Debate team at the University. 4 years of high school policy debate. National circuit experience.

__**Basics:**__ -I have no problem with speeding. As long as you are clear I will flow you. If you are unclear then I will say either "clear" or "slow" to indicate the issue. You get two chances. After that I will stop flowing. -I feel more comfortable/ prefer judging rounds based on CPs, D/As and theory as opposed to hyper kritical. Although, if you have the ability to clearly articulate the K then by no means would I encourage you otherwise. -I like development of arguments. There is no reason why an argument should be confusing at the end of the debate. If you know you are reading something that is confusing or intricate take time to explain the argument in detail. It does you no good to have an argument that is not developed. - Do not say derogatory things to your opponents and be kind. I understand being frustrated but there is no need to be a jerk. - I will dock speaker points if you speed as fast as possible against an opponent who is clearly new to the activity and has no clue what is happening. Each debate is an educational experience and by scaring off newcomers you are preventing debate from being.... well.... educational -DO NOT place arguments that are not carded and blipie right on top of one another then expect me to flow. YOU MUST GIVE THE JUDGE PEN TIME. This includes perms. -I will most likely call for evidence at the end of round. - I greatly dislike pulling up old backfiles because you are too lazy to have arguments. Please do not come up and read ocularcentrism in hopes they don't have their file. I will not automatically vote you down, but your speaker points will most likely be affected if you do not have strong cause.


 * __Specifics:__**

-I am by no means a T hack. If a case is mostly reasonably topical then it will take a lot to persuade me they are ruining debate. If a team is clearly not topical then obviously topicality should be in the debate.
 * T:**
 * -**If you want topicality to be the voter or the debate then the 2NR should fully address topicality. Most likely it will be pretty hard to get me to vote on it if it is 2 minutes of your 5 minute speech.
 * -**Theoretical in final rebuttals should always be dedicated large chunks of time.

I like counterplans. I think they are a good test of the affirmative. I believe the negative should be allowed one conditional advocacy and the affirmative should refute it but I am always up for a good theory debate. And i believe there are numerous reasons that things can be abusive.
 * CPs:**

I am not terribly deep on a lot of the literature but I do have a sturdy grasp on the generic Ks that are popular year after year and a deep enough understanding of how many of the impacts interact within debate. If you plan on reading an offbeat K then just know you will have to thoroughly explain your argument and how it interacts with the case. Be deep on the literature.
 * Ks:**

I am a fan of specific D/A stories and I am always a fan of politics and unique stories with specific links.
 * D/As:**

-I think paperless is just fine. If your computer crashes it is on you. Deal with it. It's a risk. Make sure you have a way for the opponents to view your speeches. transfer all speeches and documents before the speech.
 * Paperless:**
 * -** DO NOT READ AHEAD IN YOUR OPPONENTS SPEECH. I think this is an unfair advantage. If I see you doing it I will dock your speaker point.

I will evaluate speaks on the ability of debater obviously. Additional things that will affect your speaker points will be clarity, efficiency, rudeness/ politeness, performance with paperless and papered debate, phoniness, flowing (Please flow the entire debate, I understand the 1N not flowing the 2NC but aside from that just flow), and general ethos.
 * Speaks:**