Formola,+Melinda

** Penn State University 2015’  **
 * Melinda Formola –E.L Meyers High School 2011’ **
 * __About:__ **

I have debated two years for E.L Meyers High school locally and nationally and currently coach Policy Debate. My strategy usually consists of real world arguments and impacts. Creativity and originality was usually what I strived for. I also relate to more modern stock issues, but still favor disadvantages and counterplans. With my philosophy I don’t expect you to change your strategy since this is how you prep your own debate, and if you can debate your arguments well, then I should have no problem to vote for it. What you should take from my philosophy is with the arguments that I usually am not in favor for to not flaw on the reason to why I usually don’t vote on them in the first place.


 * __*How debaters should debate:__ **

> Topicality: T is extremely important for debaters to use if the opposing team is truly not within the resolution; Un-topical debates are bad for education and the resolution itself as well as extra topical plans. However, T in my opinion in most rounds is used as a time-suck. I won’t vote on T unless there is actually abuse. I WILL NOT VOTE ON POTENTIAL. > > Kritiks: I do not find Kritiks reasonably used in policy debate since the critical argument stays the same and teams can run the same argument each year. Also in real-world policy making most kritiks used in rounds would never be used in the real world. I do find Kritiks necessary however if a plan or resolution does create a specific problem in round that needs to be addressed. Specific problems should include racism, sexism, environment, poverty, etc. Anything that can offend or needs a changed mindset, but it must specifically link to plan! > > Counterplans: Counterplans are great for the negative team to reconstruct the affirmatives plan and to avoid the disadvantage impact. That does not mean I like it linking to politics. I love PIC’s but vote only if it solves 100% of the affs plan and has competition. Needs to be explained vaguely why it competes. > > Disadvantages: Generic disadvantages give no weight in the round; they must tell a story and actually link to the affirmatives plan. I love real-world and creative Disads. You’re better off giving me 3 small disadvantages with low magnitude and high probability than just extinction. I think politics disadvantages are un-realistic especially the usual link scenarios. Keep it smart, it makes no sense to run a high impact scenario if congress won’t pass a specfic action-> NOT REAL WORLD- we see it happen every day, would have already triggered. > > Theory: Theory is important to an extent- If there’s abuse in round it needs base as to why it’s significant and carries weight. Random theory argument won’t win you the round; it will just give you more time to suck. Condo bad or good I usually wouldn’t vote on. Politics theory can be important when necessary, and I do like perm theory as well. > > Framework: This seems to be a larger issue with running correctly. Framework can be the most powerful argument only if its ran the correct way. Most teams forget they usually even have it or don’t extend it after the 2NC. You need to extend, outweigh and explain how the other team does not meet your framework and why is necessary in your favor or how the round should be incorporated. I think framework is fun; just needs to be original and explained frequently-> it must link. > > SPEED: I hate spreading, but like when you speak fast. I don’t want a 3 min disad, but I don’t want a 15 second one either. CLARITY FIRST, then you can speak fast. I will vote you down on speaker points if I can’t understand you, as well as vote you down on arguments. I will also not pretend that I understand you, I take this seriously and every argument is important to yours and my understanding. I need to understand who your sources are and what the warrants read in your cards. I don’t want to recall evidence since that gives me a bias outlook on what’s being said and what’s not interpreted in the round by the debaters. >
 * Clarity comes first.
 * Being polite and professional
 * Eye contact and body language is important.
 * Analysis and logic need to be used
 * Empirical evidence
 * **** Time allocation ****
 * 1) 
 * *How I vote: I don’t vote last second, so I usually make my decisions in the 2NR. I focus on what the 1AR drops and how the 2NR outweighs and extends or vice versa in the 1AR. I do enjoy impact calc, but need impact story, just not on the magnitude of your impacts. KEEP IT REAL WORLD. I love originality in both sides, as well as original style. Keep it interesting, it’s a long round. Performance aff’s to me are a joke, if you want to prove a point just run a K. ||