Myrick,+Marilyn

I am the coach at Lake Travis High School in Austin, Texas.

Policy:

Speed: I'm fine with speed and any argument style. I'll say clear or slow if needed, start off slower at the beginning of your speech so I can get used to your speed and voice. You probably won't be too fast for me but gauge your speed - I make pretty evident facial expressions if I am lost. I ran a lot of CRT during my high school career, favoring Afropess, so I am comfortable with a lot of critical theory but far left lit like Deleuze or Virilio will need more explanations. Really do whatever in front of me, I'm pretty tab - you can do 1off k or 8 off policy making args as long as you impact and provide a clear framing.

Speaker Points: My scale is 25-30. I have given few 25s and 30s this year and average about 28.5/29. Here is a rough outline of my scale; 25 - you said something racist, sexist, homophobic etc., were rude or demeaning to your opponent and/or make the debate space unsafe 26-27 - You tried. You dropped some pretty big things on the flow, had inconsistent speed/clarity, didn't impact things out on my flow etc. 27.5-28.5 - you were clear but behind on the top layers of the flow but had decent delivery 28.5-29.5 - you probably deserve to break and you are average/above average. This is the most common speaks I give so don't be surprised if this is what you get. 30 - literal mic drop. You will probably win the tournament if you get a 30. Props.

Theory: This is fine. Do it if theres abuse. I'm prob not the most receptive to frivolous theory.

Topicality: I used to have a sticker that said "Topicality is a Timesuck" but my paradigm on this front has probably changed. Especially on this topic I think Topicality is a pretty good litmus test at weighing arguments and offense but I don't think I would hedge my bets entirely on T with me as a judge. I think policy ignores a lot of standards comparison/clash that it probably needed to have an in-depth T debate leaving me mostly disappointed a lot of the time. T probably isn't enough to win you a debate round on neg so if you are going all in on T you probably aren't winning unless your opponent drastically mishandles it. Overall not a huge fan.

CPs: Do it, I'm receptive. A strategically ran CP/PIC is probably a good strat in front of me as long as you weigh under a given policy fw. They're good if you run them well.

DisAds: <span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">Im fine with it - I am more receptive to specific links/internal links and won't just sign a ballot if you have a big stick impact. On this note, I am probably decently persuaded by a 2AC that does a lot of impact defense. However, defense isn't enough to win on the flow here.

<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">Ks: <span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">Probably my favorite style of argumentation. My kids run a lot of fem and critical/performance stuff so I am familiar with the way kritiks exist & their debate application. Make sure you articulate the alt well and the impact story following the links. I am fine with K affs as long as you emphasize the framing and why my ballot is important.

<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">Performance: <span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">Do it. I am very receptive to this style and write/work with a lot of this on my team. Impact the ballot story well and you will do better in my eyes. Performance is cool and I am a big fan. (Don't forget to extend the performance and embody it all the way through...people don't do this enough and it makes me sad.) <span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">Have fun, make good choices. Framework is the most important thing to me so impact things under it and you'll do great in my eyes. Debate is supposed to be enjoyable and educational so make it that way.

LD:

Pretty much the same as above but I do think the neg in LD seems to warrant an advocacy, especially in Value/Criterion debates or in truth testing the resolution. I default to an offense-defense paradigm a lot here because of a lack of framework weighing. FW is a pretty easy way to get my ballot in LD, I would suggest leveraging this on other arguments as well.