Morehead,+Alexandra+'Ola'

Harvard College '17 Newburgh Free Academy '13
 * Alexandra "Ola" Morehead**


 * Policy Philosophy**

__Summary__: Debate how ever you feel most comfortable, and to the best of your ability. My default interpretation of the round is that of a policymaker evaluating the aff against a competitive policy option (unless I am told otherwise). That being said, I require an organized and coherent debate. At the end of the day, I highly value clarity and specificity, and will vote on impact calc.

More specifically...

The Flow: Well structured speeches that facilitate clash are key. It is not advisable to put me in a position where I have to dissect a speech and figure out how all of the arguments interact. I tend to evaluate the big picture, so it is important to impact arguments and compare them to one another.

Case, DA, and CP: I really appreciate a strong and specific case debate. Specific and warranted analysis on the case turn debate is essential to the round, and I love when the neg is able to frame the warrants of the DA's impacts within the context of the aff's advantages. The negative should be able to prove how their impacts outweigh the advantages in any type of DA debate. Also, a word on politics DA: I do not mind the politics disad if it is argued well. I am somewhat of the mind that aff fiat precludes the impacts of the DA, but this does not determine how I will look at the flow. In terms of the counterplan debate, I generally enjoy well researched and specific CPs, and will vote for whichever policy option is comparatively better. I tend to think that consult/conditions cps are illegitimate, and I don't think artificially competitive CPs make for a convincing strategy.

CP Theory: Not that convincing, and I would prefer a specific case debate over a theory debate any day. I default to condo, but will listen to any other theory //so long// as the team is able to prove significant abuse/loss of education occurred within the round.

Topicality: I default to competing interpretations, but will evaluate reasonability so long as it is based upon evaluating in round abuse. I am keen to arguments that establish predictable ground for both sides of the debate. All this being said, this debate has to be super clear, so do not blow through the T shell before I can uncap my pen.

K: A bit of a high threshold here, but I really appreciate a well argued K debate. A few key points: - The neg has to win a risk of K turning case and the alternative winning some form of the aff. If the K does not specifically address the aff, I will view it as a non-unique DA. - I have a decent amount of knowledge when it comes to Foucault, so I cannot promise that I am completely unbiased when it comes to the execution Ks (i.e. if you misconstrue the works of certain philosophers, I may call you out on it). If you are going to incorporate dense philosophical literature into your strategy, you have to understand it well beyond the level needed to simply confuse your opponent. -Roll of the ballot is crucial.

Performance: I can also appreciate a well done performance debate. However, I am not prone to believing that debate is a destructive and awful activity, so be strategic here. Contrary to popular belief, performance debates and organization do not have to be mutually exclusive. I will still hold you to a high standard even if you are to utilize performance.

Qualifications: I debated for four years for Newburgh Free Academy and was in the semifinals of the CFL national tournament my junior year.

Final Thoughts: I started debating when paper was the preferred medium for this activity. In the era of paperless debate, people somehow gained endless ways to steal prep time and have forgotten how to flow. Don't destroy debate- just flow. Debate is an awesome activity, so please be civilized in round and allow everyone to enjoy it.

If you have any questions, feel free to shoot me an email: alexandramrhd@aol.com