Stoecker,+Katie

1. Briefly describe your view of proper debate etiquette and how you will evaluate/enforce deviations. All I ask is that you all treat each other with respect. If I find you to be rude, condescending or just plain mean, your speaker points will reflect that. 2. Evidence citations (what parts of the evidence do you require to be read aloud) Last name of author and year are fine unless it’s a politics uniqueness or other time sensitive piece of evidence. Qualifications are only really necessary when quality of evidence becomes a vital issue in the round. 3. Reading evidence after the round (under what conditions will you read evidence). I’ll only read evidence if I feel that the round comes down to two opposing claims that were both argued equally well. In this case I feel the only possible tie breaker is to decide which team’s claim is more valid based on the cards they read. 4. Tag Teaming (one person prompting his/her partner) a. During C/X – It’s okay as long as person supposed to be answering/asking question is mostly doing so.

b. During Speeches – Try to avoid unless it is absolutely necessary. Just don’t give your partner’s speech. 1. Would you characterize yourself as having a particular paradigm you consistently default to? If so, what is it and what does this mean to you? Would you ever vote in a different paradigm? If so, when and why? No, I’ll vote on anything if you do enough work to make my buy it. I really just want to be told who I should vote for and why. I like a lot of impact calc, preferably beginning as early in the round as possible. I don’t just want to hear that you have magnitude, timeframe and probability; I want to be told uniquely how your impact interacts with their impacts. If you can convince me that solving your impact is a prerequisite to solving theirs, I’ll probably vote for you. I also enjoy story-telling. By the rebuttal speeches, I may have forgotten your link scenario and would like to be reminded with a clever overview. Humor is a plus. The 2ar and 2nr should both begin with a short global overview of the round. 2. Please compare issues of presentation and content. Do you view debate as primarily an activity of communication and persuasiveness? Do you view debate as a search for the best policy option? In other words, does the team with a better presentation/style always win the debate? Under what conditions, if any, would you give a low-point win? Persuasiveness and presentation are more influential on your speaker points than my likelihood to actually vote for you. Sometimes even the best speakers make stupid mistakes (ex.—forgetting to extend a voting issue). In that type of situation a low-point win is appropriate. 1. Topicality: I don’t vote on potential abuse. I think time suck topicality arguments kill in-round education. Don’t go for T unless there is actual in-round abuse or you can thoroughly articulate to me several concrete reasons why potential abuse is in fact a voter. 2. Disadvantages: I’ll vote here if you can tell we why it outweighs the case advantages. I’m even more likely to vote here if you can win a “disad turns the case” argument. 3. Counterplans: A) Do counterplans need to be non-topical? No, but only do this if you can win the theory to justify it.   B) What makes a counterplan legitimate? It needs to solve all of case and have a powerful net benefit. If it doesn’t solve all of case, the net benefit should outweigh the advantage you don’t solve or you should win that that part of case is a bad idea. 4. Kritiks: a. Will you/do you vote on kritiks? Yes b. If yes, what does the team running a kritik need to do to win the argument? Just like any other argument, I want to know why the impact outweighs the impacts of the case. Also, if the link story isn’t explained well I probably won’t vote here. Don’t assume I know what your argument says. You need to explain it to me. Buzzwords are cool but I won’t vote for something I don’t understand. 4. Theory. Please explain any predispositions you may have for or against issues of theory. How likely are you to vote on theoretical arguments (permutations, severance, conditionality, inherency, textual kritik alternatives, specialized topicality issues, dispositionality, etc.)? I will vote here if the round comes down to it. Again, I prefer not to vote on potential abuse. If you are going to go for it, make sure you spend an adequate amount of time on it in earlier speeches. 5. On case debates. Describe your inclination to vote on case arguments. What do debaters need to do to win case debate issues? I’ll vote anywhere is there is enough impact calc on it. Please comment – you can circle and/or explain your philosophy regarding the following: 1. Speed of Delivery (slower – equal to or less than conversation speed) (faster) 1_ 2_ 3_ 4_ 5_ 6_ 7_ 8 X 9_ 10_ 2. Will you indicate to the debaters if you need him/her to articulate more and/or change speed? If so, how? I will say if you need to speak more clearly. Speed isn’t an issue if you are clear. Don’t be monotone or I’ll probably unintentionally tune you out. Please slow down or use some sort of other emphasis for tags. 3. How do analytical arguments weigh against evidence based arguments? I’ll only give precedent to a carded argument if you’re analytical is just silly or their card directly addresses your argument. Cards are cool, but I like smart analyticals to be in the round too. 4. What is your view on new arguments in the 2NC (meaning new off-case attacks or case debates not initiated in the 1NC)? I really rather not see this, but if the other team doesn’t read theory against it then I guess it’s legitimate.
 * Paradigm and Argument Preferences **
 * Argument Preferences ** – include how likely you are to vote and any predispositions you may have regarding:
 * Style and Performance **