Vieira,+Liz

Liz Vieira
Between competing and coaching, I have been involved in debate for about 10 years. I have spent many of the last few years coaching at Lakeville North and South, but am not coaching the 2011-12 season. I also coach extemp speaking at Lakeville North.

I very strongly encourage you to provide me a decision calculus so I know in what order to evaluate the round’s arguments. I prefer one developed strategy that is well-executed as opposed to several conditional or under-developed positions. If the round devolves to a series of unimpacted, unweighed arguments from both debaters, I’ll likely have to wade through my flows to find a winning position, and this may cause my view of the round to be different than yours and my decision to be different than what you anticipated. The more specific, responsive, and weighted your arguments are to your opponent’s, the likelier I am to vote for your arguments.

I default to evaluating a round using util if debaters don't tell me to evaluate it in another way. I'm not opposed to deont in principle, but to be completely honest, I'm often not comfortable voting on it because debaters don't clearly explain how it works. If you want me to do so, be explicitly clear on how it functions and what happens if there are deontic violations on both sides.

I do not enjoy theory, but I will vote on it to exclude arguments ONLY with demonstrated abuse in the round. By demonstrated abuse, I mean that the disadvantage and loss of equitable ground imposed can not be overcome by one’s preparedness. **This means that theory should not be your primary strategy in front of me.**

I am growing to hate the style of debate that consists of a lengthy "overview" or several off instead of line by line responses to your opponent's case, especially since often the points in the overview do answer specific points in the AC. **I would much prefer responsive arguments on the flow to generic responses to the position.** I will not go searching through your list of 20 responses and apply them to the arguments your opponent made-- do that work or it will not be done.

I am also not a huge fan of generic arguments that can be run on any topic-- things like skepticism, determinism, etc.


 * IF YOU WANT TO PICK UP MY BALLOT, TELL ME HOW ARGUMENTS INTERACT ON THE FLOW AND WEIGH YOUR OFFENSE AGAINST YOUR OPPONENT'S. IF YOU DON'T CONNECT ARGUMENTS IN THE ROUND I WILL NOT DO IT FOR YOU.**

I am getting pretty frustrated with some debaters' lack of respect for judges, tournament hosts and other competitors. Please conduct yourself in a way that suggests you have some respect for others. I don't care how dressed up you are or whether you sit or stand when you speak, I do care if you insult other people in the activity.

If you have any specific questions about my paradigm, please ask me before round.