Bissell,+Marie

Hey, my name is Marie. I debated LD for four years on both local and national circuits for duPont Manual High School in Louisville, Kentucky. I am currently studying philosophy at Wash U in Saint Louis, MO.

If you take away nothing else substantive from reading this, just know that I have a terrible poker face and my expressions tend to reflect my level of understanding of what you are saying. If you think I look confused, odds are you're correct.

In terms of my general preferences, I try to be pretty tab. You should do what you are best at. However, I would be lying if I were to claim that I lack stylistic preferences altogether. Here they are in no particular order:

Speed: I think fast conversational speed is ideal. I'm okay with some spreading, but exercise caution because I am not the world's greatest flower. Please at least slow down for taglines and analytics. I will say "clear" if I cannot understand you and will probably stop flowing entirely if conditions don't improve.

Framework: I am most familiar with the value/criterion structure. I am not opposed to alternative constructions as long as they are well warranted and clearly explained. I enjoy substantive framework debate, probably more so than most LD judges. I think a strong, philosophically-grounded framework is maybe the most strategic route for winning the round.

Organization: Please please please give roadmaps and signpost in your speeches because honestly I am very bad at following what you are saying otherwise. Label where you are on which flow during your rebuttals or else your arguments will be flowed sporadically in random open spots on my flow paper. Further, if I can't follow which arguments you're actually addressing with your responses, it is unlikely that I will be able to take them into account when deciding who to vote for. Trust me, you don't want this to occur.

Policy-Style Arguments in LD Kritiks: Being a philosophy major, I admittedly do find critical literature to be fascinating. However, I wouldn't classify myself as a "K hack" or whatever you kids call it. In fact, my threshold for pulling the trigger on these arguments may be slightly higher considering I am that more likely to be familiar with the literature and whether you are interpreting it accurately. One thing I have noticed recently is that negatives don't tend to read clear evidence linking the kritik to the specific rhetoric of the AC. If you read a kritik, it is much more likely that I will go for it if such relevant evidence has been brought up. NB: Your kritik needs to have an alt. It is impossible for me to evaluate this type of argument if it is lacking this necessary structural element. Plans/CPs/DAs: I am neutral. I think they can be argued convincingly when accompanied by a compelling framework. Otherwise, it is unclear to me how plans etc. are compatible with value-centered debate. Theory: I would caution you against running theory absent an egregious, in-round violation. If you are on the fence about whether you should run theory, I would strongly advise against it. I find most theory arguments to be frivolous and whiny. Instead of playing the victim, engage with the substance of "abusive" arguments and I will be much more likely to buy what you are saying.

Likes - Voting issues - Explicit evidence comparison that demonstrates clear knowledge of evidence contents - Extending warrants for evidence/analytics in rebuttals - Substantive framework arguments (i.e. not "Justice is better than morality because we have to be just in order to be moral") - Wit - Original thought/Not being a debate robot

Dislikes - Most theory arguments - Being purposely rude or demeaning to your opponent, especially if you know you are beating them - Mislabeling arguments (i.e. labeling something as a turn when it is not) because that is just unnecessarily confusing for all involved - Being intentionally vague or evasive in CX - Not knowing the contents of your own evidence