Plaza,+Melanie

I debated for four years for The Bronx High School of Science and have taught at VBI and UTNIF. I'm pretty open-minded and, with minor exceptions, prefer the debaters to tell me how I should be evaluating their debate round. Speed/Clarity: Any speed is generally fine. If I am unable to follow a debater (either because of the audibility of a speech or because of the confusing content of a speech), I will noticeably stop flowing. Standards: I am very willing to vote for arguments that function independent of a standards structure as long as they are accompanied by an alternative calculus of evaluation and warrants for why this calculus is valid. Absent this, I default to a standards structure. Theory: I don't like "abusive theory". Since theory is to some degree a call for intervention to correct some flaw in debate, I reserve the right to decide whether I want to intervene for the theory or intervene against the theory. If theory is run well and in the proper situation, then I will vote for it. Aff/Neg Ground: I don't have a preconceived way of evaluating the affirmative and negative burdens and thus I won't default to either side of the resolution absent in round justifications for this. Speaker Points: I assign speaker points primarily based on the quality of debate strategy and argumentation. Presentational issues are a secondary concern. I only ask that debaters not be rude to one another and I will significantly reduce speaker points for this, for making completely new arguments in the 2NR/ 2AR, or for lying.