Smaga,+Sarah


 * Updated Dec 2013**

Groves High School '10 Michigan State University '13 - Biochemistry Yale University PhD pre-candidate, Molecular Biophysics and Biochemistry
 * About Me:**

Topic experience: 4 weeks of judging rounds at the SDI, several monthly UDL's I worked as a lab assistant for 2 weeks at the 2013 SDI and an RA for the remainder of camp, so I have a pretty good feel for the topic. Since September, I've been judging monthly NYCUDL tournaments.

Take my philosophy into consideration when prepping your strategy, but ultimately you should run arguments you feel comfortable running.
 * General:**
 * 1) Clipping cards is cheating. If you are caught clipping cards, you will lose the round and get the lowest possible speaker points that the tournament will allow. The parts of your evidence read in a speech must be clearly marked.
 * 2) Prep ends when your speech is saved on the flash drive and that flash drive is __removed from your computer__. I used to be more relaxed about this, but realized it makes rounds inefficient.
 * 3) Tag-teaming in cross-x is fine. Prompting during a speech is fine. Neither should be excessive. That being said, if two people are talking over each other, I can't flow/hear anything.
 * 4) Be nice to other people in the round. Being condescending, rude, mean, etc. will impact your speaker points.
 * 5) Speed is not as important as clarity: I need to be able to understand you read your arguments in order to vote on them.


 * Specifics:**

Counterplans - I'm fine with multiple conditional worlds, but they might make the aff's "condo bad" arguments more convincing. I'm less fond of process counterplans, dirty word PICs, etc. Make sure you explain specifically how your counterplan solves the aff advantages - this might require more work if you run an excessively complicated counterplan. Affirmatives should be making perms, solvency arguments, exploring any links to the net benefit, etc.


 * Disads - These are good. The negative should be making disad turns case arguments, and the affirmative should be careful not to drop them. I think it is possible for the affirmative to win terminal defense, but it's often very difficult - make sure you're also making offensive arguments as well. I'm not a huge fan of intrinsicness, vote no, bottom of the docket, etc. but I would vote on them if dropped and impacted accordingly. **

Kritiks - Try to avoid jargon and explain your arguments, I'm probably not familiar with them and I don't come across critical literature very much in my science major classes. I'm much less persuaded by super-generic or "dirty word" kritiks, especially if they don't prove that the affirmative plan is a bad idea. I think the aff can weigh their advantages, and should be doing impact calc versus the kritik, especially on issues of timeframe. The negative should interact with the affirmative and clearly explain the alternative - if these things are unclear by the 2NR, I find it difficult to vote neg.

Theory - I think most theory questions (with the exception of conditionality, PICs) are a reason to reject the argument, but not necessarily the team. If you think otherwise, make sure it's articulated in the debate. Theoretical objections against the consult counterplan, etc. are also convincing if argued well. I find it more difficult to vote on theory when there is a distinct lack of clash - don't just reread blocks, engage with the other team's arguments. Please explain what "conditionality" and "dispositionality" mean - clarify judge-kicking, etc.

Topicality - I prefer a competing interpretations framework. There should be substantive analysis, starting in the block, about why I should prefer your interpretation/standards/voters (just re-reading the 1NC shell in the block isn't sufficient). Impact calc is important here too.

Project Teams/Nontraditional Affs - I have substantially less experience in these kinds of debates. For both teams - try to engage with each other's arguments and explain your position. It's probably helpful to provide a very clear explanation of my role as a judge, the ballot, and why your arguments mean you win the debate.