Tran,+Meagan

I competed for three years in Lincoln-Douglas Debate for Desert Vista High School (2 years on the national circuit) from 2010-2014. This will be my first time judging, so I will try my best and update my paradigm as I discover new details to add to it. What I have here already, however, will remain true.

__My philosophy__ I believe that debaters should be able to run the arguments they want to. As a debater, I put much effort into cases that were never run because I “never had the right judge.” As a judge, I want to encourage debaters to run the arguments they never had the chance to run. I will be an open listener to any argument you choose to run; for it does not matter since the opponent’s job is to refute it. So I hope you read this before asking me "what types of arguments do //you// prefer?" Although I am open to arguments, they must still be run //well// in order for me to vote on them. What follows is to help you get a sense of what I mean by a well-run argument.

__Speed__ Bear in mind that I have not seen a debate round for months. So when spreading, please be VERY clear (I will yell ‘clear’ if necessary) and don’t go at maximum speed right away. When reading author names and tags, //emphasize// it (reading slowly, reading loudly, pausing, etc.). I will not vote for something I do not understand or get down on my flow. Overviews are very, very, very nice J

__Theory/Topicality__ Tell me what to vote for. Otherwise, you leave me up to my own assumptions (drop the argument and not the debater, no RVI’s, reasonability). Please do not leave things for me to assume. If you choose to run theory/topicality, you must do the weighing for me as well as run it in a shell. I have no preference on education/fairness: it is up to you and your opponent to do the weighing.

__Plans/Counterplans__ There must be a CLEAR [counter]plan text when you read this. You must also tell me how to weigh your argument rather than for me to assume.

__Kritiks__ I am not well versed on critical philosophy although the arguments intrigue me and I am more than happy to listen to them. If you choose to run a K, please keep this in mind; do not assume I know what you are saying. Read slower than you usually would if you normally spread, and take time to explain the argument. You must still win the argument.

__Disadvantages__ There must be a framework to weigh this under if you run one. Link story must be CLEAR and you must be able to explain those links clearly.

__Cross Examination__ I will not flow this, but I will pay attention to the strategies used during CX, which will ultimately factor into speaker points. Besides that, conduct this in which ever way you wish and keep in mind that it must not be disregarded.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask before the round. I would be happy to clarify my paradigm J