McCormick,+Stephanie

Stephanie McCormick Newburgh Free Academy 2011 Boston University 2015

I debated at NFA for four years, participating in the CFL National tournament in my Junior and Senior years. I now debate parli at Boston University.

Quick Version: I'm down with anything. I come into every debate with a blank slate and will absolutely avoid any type of intervention. Evidence, impact calculus, and warrants are the most important things in a round, so make sure they happen.

Interp of the Round: In any round, I will default to the lens of a policymaker. With that being said, I'm certainly open to anything. I love the framework debate, although it's difficult to find one with good clash so if it's going to happen, make it competitive. I've definitely voted for non-policy frameworks, but it does take some work. Of course, if there is a framework debate, it is one of the more important flows in the round because I'll need an established framework to decide the round.

Theory/Topicality: I'm cool with it, although these are always difficult debates to win. Slow down on theory some, otherwise the blips will just go over my, and your opponents', head. I prefer a debate of competing interpretations, which means research should be done very carefully and you should'nt bother with a T that doesn't have a solid definition. One pet peeve I do have is a substantial debate: unless the affirmative is clearly screwing you over please don't pull out random statistics about how much is the right amount, it's all subjective and pretty annoying. Of course, if you choose to do this anyways, I will listen and hold no bias.

Disads/Case: This debate is always advantageous and I'm open for anything. The more clever a scenario, the better. Disads are an excellent way to challenge the affirmative team's knowledge of their aff. Politics is great, but please know what you're talking about. Knowing the basics of the political spectrum and keeping up to date with the goings-on is important and will allow you to argue the disad well. For this disad, it's especially important to not only have the cards but to be able to articulate the scenario. Case work is critical for neutralizing the aff impacts and making impact calculus in the later speeches a lot more difficult, so do it!

Kritiks: Huge fan. Kritiks need to be argued in terms of the affirmative world: that is, the negative should be utilizing arguments like K turns case and alt solves the aff to win this flow. This mean that the negative should always tailor their links and alternatives to the affirmative at hand. Generic Ks definitely get annoying and, if not made specific in the 1NC, should definitely be expanded on in later speeches.

CPs: Counterplans exist as competitive options against the affirmative. As such, the negative should be proving why the counterplan is a better solvency mechanism than the affirmative. As a former 2A, I have never been a fan of PICs and agent CPs because they are usually piled on in the 1NC, making the 2AC a terrible speech to give. However, I have seen many of these types of CPs argued very well and am always open to them.

Performance/Criticism of Debate: Again, I am open to anything. Some of the most successful debaters I have known dedicated their careers to performance. With that being said, I am not really a fan of debates about how debate is evil: I love debate and I'm betting any debater I judge loves it too, that's why we're all here. There are definitely problems with the structure of debate and the debate community and I have no problem hearing about them. But dissing the activity as a whole seems a little extreme...but again, I will be impartial in any debate. One thing I will say is that evidence should ALWAYS supplement a performance. This usually isn't a problem, but it has happened and it is not fun. Again, I am a policy maker but I definitely enjoy all types of debate and will NEVER, allow my personal opinions to interfere.