Burt,+Meagan

toc

About:
I've debated both Policy and Lincoln Douglas for several years and I've qualified for state on the UIL and TFA circuits for Policy. When in high school, I placed in the top 4 teams at several Houston-area competitions for Policy and have broke for Lincoln Douglas, so I have experience with both types.

Policy Paradigm

 * Theory**: I will take any theory argument. Just be aware that when you run one, you’re basically asking for the judge’s opinion. That being said, if I start out thinking that something isn’t abusive, your theory argument may convince me that it is. Same goes vice-versa. I will also take into account what you run. If you say the neg loses DA ground, then run three DAs, I’m not going to give you the theory argument.


 * Topicality**: Love T, if you aren’t wasting my time with it. I’ll take obscure definitions if you can argue reasonability and predictability, or any other standard which will lead me to accept the definition as legitimate. Newer dates do not trump a better source on generic terms, they do when it comes to scientific or legal terms. 2AC must address the T argument’s standards and voters, either with counter-standards and voters. The jurisdiction voter annoys me and probably won’t affect the outcome of the round. T arguments can win or cost a round if they’re good and enough time is spent on them.


 * On Case**: Unless neg is running a huge K, I think they need to run on case argument. Significance, inherency, case turns, etc. can all become major voters in the round, depending on what you argue. Inherency especially, but the neg has to prove with evidence that the plan is already being done.

Kritikal Affs: I don’t like them, but the neg still has the burden to “prove you wrong,” so to speak. Theory arguments and impacts win these rounds.
 * Kritiks**: I’m fine with them. Don’t run more than one in the round, obviously. Alt solvency and framework will be important in deciding my vote when a K is involved.


 * Impact Calculus**: I prefer to cast my vote based on this. All parts need to be there (magnitude, timeframe, probability). Magnitude is the least important. The number of people dead will not sway my vote in your direction. I will vote dehumanization over extinction if you win timeframe and probability. If you’re making me choose between extinction by fire and extinction by ice (or extinction by nuclear war and extinction by global warming, as may be the case), you need to win tf and probability. If one side wins tf and the other wins probability, impact calc won’t be what I vote on.


 * Spreading**: Slow down for plan text, tags, and sources. Go as fast as you want on the body text, I’ll probably understand you anyways. If you don’t say tags, etc. in a regular speaking voice, I might not get them written down. You want me to write them down. Just slow down for those parts and you’re golden.


 * Speaks**: I’ll never give below 25, 30 means that you are in the top ten or twenty speakers that I’ve heard this year. Rudeness will give you lower speaks, but it won’t cost you a round.


 * Bias**: I am definitely a judge who won’t buy arguments that are unreasonable in a real life context. However, it’s rare that I will think an argument is completely unreasonable. “Racism good” and “sexism good” are basically the only examples of this. Anything else, you can run.

LD Paradigm
Most of my experience is with policy, but I have debated LD and broke at several tournaments. I may not know the current trends on the LD circuit. However, I will be able to effectively evaluate a round. Speed: Slow down on tags, signpost. A good rule is if you want me to write it down, say it at your conversational speed. Other than that, go as fast as you want. I’ll understand you and remember what you’re saying, I just won’t write it down. Theory: Must prove lost ground, but I love ‘em. Theory based debates are my favorite, but only if there is cause to argue theory. Criterion: Vital to the round. I will probably vote based on who argues for their criterion better.

Flowing: I’m great at it, even at high speeds. But you will need to signpost or I’ll be guessing where things flow. Final Rebuttals: Should include a quick line-by-line, but should focus on the voting issues on the round. Voting issues: Tell me what they are, give me good reasons as to why those are the voting issues, and I will likely agree. Evidence: I understand that this is LD and that evidence is not always necessary. However, if you have it, use it. If your opponent brings up that you don’t have evidence to support a particular grandiose claim, I’ll likely side with them on that issue. If one person has evidence on a particular argument and the other doesn’t, I will tend to vote for the side with evidence (though this is not always the case). Rudeness: I won’t vote against you for it, but it will hurt your speaks. Speaker Points: I won’t give below 25. 30 means you are one of the top 10 speakers I’ve heard this year. Final Vote: Convince me of your argument. I won’t vote based on your speaking style, I’ll only vote based on the debate itself.