Campbell,+Melanie

Melanie Campbell Updated 8/28/14 Georgetown University of Kansas

“I do my best to judge rounds from the perspective presented by the debaters. I have voted for just about every kind of argument imaginable. […] I try my best to resolve a debate based on what the debaters have said in their speeches. I try not to impose my own perspective on a debate. […] The purpose of my ballot is to say who I think won the debate not to express my personal opinion on an issue or to stimulate social transformation. That said I do have some preferences.” - Dr. Harris

I reward debaters who work hard, demonstrate robust knowledge of the topic, and come in with well-researched strategies.

Topicality - It’s a real thing. Reading an aff all year or nebulous 'it's the heart of the topic' claims do not make you topical. I default to competing interps and think that even questions of reasonability generally require the aff to extend a counterinterp that is reasonable.

Disads – Zero risk is also a thing (or at least there can be such a low risk that any rational person would consider it to be zero in their decision calculus). The idea that because 'you are controlling X issue means that their is only a risk of Y issue' makes no sense to me in most contexts. If this logic was true, why even read a link if you think your UQ cards are hot. Impact calc from both teams should start early.

Try or Die - Can be useful if a) there is a chance of 'trying' being successful b) the other team doesn't also 'try'

Counterplans - I tend to be neg leaning on cp theory questions, however, I’m increasingly convinced that there is a clear distinction between the mandates of the plan the effects of the plan – counterplans that compete off the first are fair game, counterplans that compete off of the second probably aren’t actually competitive. The caveat to this is I think the neg should get CPs that compete off of positions the aff has explicitly taken in their speeches or CX. So if the aff reads an adv to federal action or cards that say only congressional action solves, the neg should get the states or court CP. (tl;dr – the cx answer of ‘we’ll defend X for DAs but not CPs’ makes zero sense).

Limited conditionality is good and I default to the 2NR’s world unless otherwise explicitly instructed that the squo is an option.

Kritiks – Are fine, especially if you fall under the ‘KQ/economics of speed’ category and not the ‘I love Baudrillard’ category. Go for it with the following caveats in mind: a) if I can listen to the 2NC and have no idea what the topic/aff is you are making the aff’s job too easy b) specificity o/w top level claims (this includes what the alt does, what the impact to the K is, etc) c) it is important to establish some type of framework and/or impact prioritization.

Good debaters recognize that they are almost assuredly losing at least some arguments in the debate, and account for this in the rebuttals.