Shaw,+Teressa

Teressa Shaw Current Affiliations: Marquette University High School Past/Debated: Rufus King High School Updated: 11/12/15 Rounds judged to date (Surveillance topic): 17 LD: 7 tshaw4@wisc.edu

My predispositions about particular arguments should not influence what you run. I will also try to leave biases out of decision-making as much as possible (it's not).
 * Pre-Round Version**


 * Experience:** I debated for four years in high school at Rufus King. In high school I primarily read critically based arguments, but I know policy arguments. For what it’s worth, I study biochemistry at UW-Madison and have ongoing certificates in GWS/LGBT studies and economics.


 * Specific Things**
 * I don’t care if you sit, dance, stand when presenting or asking questions. You should present/perform in the way you wish. I warn you if running Baudrillard demands, you better let me know before you **try** to steal my stuff.


 * Speed:** Go fast and be clear. Odds are I can keep up and I’m happy to do so. I flow with pen and paper and I shouldn’t have to tell you if you aren’t clear. If you don’t speak fast, that’s fine too.


 * Topicality:** I think topicality is particularly interesting on this topic. I don’t agree with some judges that you need a reason to read T; it’s strategic. I generally believe that //competing interpretations is the only method to adjudicate a T debate without// necessitating //intervention// on some level. Arguments that aren’t persuasive in front of me are “We have nothing to read against this aff. We couldn’t run XYZ.” Compelling things are //clear// interpretations, DAs to T, and example of topical affirmatives.


 * Counterplans:** Counterplans are cool and should be competitive. I don’t care what type of counterplan you run, but you should be ready for a theory debate. The caveat to that is that I believe if a team can’t beat a cheater counterplan, they deserve to lose to it.


 * Theory**: I’ve debated a lot of rounds that boiled down to theory questions, so I’m an okay judge for these types of debates. Theory debates are kinda like disadvantages so impact calculus goes a long way to win my ballot. I tend to err aff on most theory questions. For condo, I think one K and one counterplan is probably fair. RVIs are generally a bad argument, especially on T. I probably can tell if you’re just reading a dusty block from the depths of your dropbox if you aren’t listing any examples of in round abuse or performative contradictions. Slow down just a little so I don’t miss important elements to your theory block. I can only judge off my flow and what I hear so it’s important that the teams ask in CX any theoretical reasons to reject the team for me and the team.


 * Kritiks:**This is the debate I am most familiar with. I debated feminism (intersectionality), post-colonialism, GBTL, and Spivak. I’m familiar with the literature to many Ks, but that doesn’t mean you should I assume I know which Bataille you are reading per say or form of Baudrillard verbatim. Do all the K tricks and do all the theory tricks.

Ways to be successful as a negative in front of me include: A clear explanation of what the alternative does and why it solves, a link that is specific to the affirmative (I’m pretty kind about links of omission and performative links as I ran them), and an impact (duh). The world of the alternative is important for me. Contextualizing a clear alternative for me will go a long way. Links should be specific and explained well. *I’m also particularly fond of pedagogy debates and pedagogy merged in the framework of the K/alt.

Affirmatives should take the advice of Tristan Morales and “Always make the debate about the affirmative and not the criticism.” Affirmatives should defend their method, make //smart// permutations, and attack alt solvency (a combination of these things are lethal). The framework debate I’ll typically evaluate as to which interpretation can provide the most ground for both teams. Neg teams should leverage framework as to why I should consider the assumptions of the affirmative before weighing their advantages. Affirmatives should leverage framework as a reason to weigh their advantages against the K


 * Kaffs/Performances:** Every affirmative is a performance. I’ve run my share of “performances” and I welcome them. I think //framework is not a good answer// to this because more than often it ends up being violent. If you want to run framework; I suggest impacting out the portable skills from standard debate versus telling teams to leave the debate space. Engage with the performance and in the words of Dr. SRB “be uncomfortable when facing difficult truths.”