Woo,+Carly

Experience: This is my 5th years in policy. 3 years in high school and 2 in college. I’m currently a debater on the UTD debate team.

Speed/Speaks: Spreading is fine but enunciation is key. I’ll say clear one or two times, after that I’ll stop flowing, that hurts you more than it hurts me, I won’t deduct speaks the first time I say clear, but after that I’ll start deducting at my own discretion. If one partner is constantly dominating CX it makes the other person look like they don’t know what they’re talking about and it’ll hurt their speaks, CX time is speech time. Excessive/unnecessary rudeness, disrespect, aggressiveness, etc. will also get your speaks deducted. Other than that I usually start at 27, if you speak really well your speaks go up from there, if you do something I listed above then your speaks go down from there.

Round logistics: I don’t count flashing as prep time, but if you’re having a bunch of difficulties or your partner is trying to sneakily prep while you’re flashing you only have so many chances before I start running your prep and you have to figure something else out. Email trains are also okay too.

T: I don’t have an unreasonably high threshold for T, but I do default to competing interpretations. I view T as a disad, which means you have to win your interpretation, the violations and adequately warrant your standards debate.

Theory: Theory arguments have to be well explained. Potential abuse is also not an impact in order to win your theory argument you have to prove that there was actual abuse in the round. I’m not going to punish a team for something they could’ve done but didn’t, that’s like giving someone detention for skipping school cause they thought about it even if they actually didn’t (stupid analogy, I know, but whatever!)

Framework: Any kind of framework is fine, but I need to know how the debate round functions in the world of your framework. If no framework is provided I tend to default to a utilitarian framework, so if that’s not what you want you should read framework.

Ks: I was a very policy oriented debater in high school and last year, that doesn’t mean I wont vote on a K but I’m probably not as familiar with the literature. At the end of the debate round I need to know how the alt functions and what the impact to the K is, these may seem like really basic things but I have dropped K teams because I don’t know what the world of the alt looks like. I’m probably not the team to read D&G or Baudrillard in front of.

Performance: I view it the same as I view any other position in debate you have to win a justification for your performance and that your performance solves for something to win the debate, you don’t win just cause you sang a song or read a poem.

DAs: I’m a big fan of the DA + CP strategy, it’s what I default to as a debater. That being said it doesn’t mean I’ll do the work for you. I don’t really know what to say besides don’t do stupid things like read defense to an econ advantage and then read a spending disad or read so much uniqueness evidence that a 1ar can get away with winning uniqueness overwhelms the link. Just like any other position you have to be strategic and win all the key parts of the argument (UQ, link, internal link, impact).

CPs: Advantage cps, plank cps, process cps, agent cps, etc. Anything is fine, even if I think your CP is abusive, if the other team doesn’t make the argument then I won’t vote you down. You just have to cover your bases (answer solvency deficits, perms, theoretical objections, etc.) and I need to know why the CP is better than the plan, sometimes teams are so focused on proving solvency for their CP they forget that second step which is problematic because then I decide whether the CP or plan is better instead of you telling me and it may not always work out in your favor because you don’t know what’s going on in my head.