Daviss,+Claire

-Graduate of Winston Churchill High School (2010) -Currently attends Yale University -Competed in LD & U.S. extemp for 4 years on the Texas & national circuit (TOC & NFL) **First, some general issues.** I default to a comparative worlds framework. By that, I mean I consider the resolution to be a comparison of two general options: the resolution and the implied opposite of the resolution. (Debaters can make arguments about what the antithesis of the resolution is.) I prefer this kind of debate because I personally believe it to be the most educational, so if you’d like to increase your chances of higher speaks, you should go with that. Otherwise, I am okay if you want to engage in a paradigm debate, provided you are clear and make direct comparisons between the different ways to view debate. **In terms of value criteria,** I prefer a clear standard in the round. I’d like to know exactly what the debater thinks needs to be done in order to win. So, that standard can be a “criterion” or a “burden” or whatever. Just tell me how to evaluate the round. That said, if the debate becomes one that only uses a net benefits calculus or a vague, “all consequentialist impacts are go” standard, please be very clear in your weighing. Sloppy weighing debates will earn low speaks. **Theory:** I am okay with theory. But, I consider it to be acceptable as a check for abuse and not purely as a method of strategy. What that means is that you’ll need to do a few things to engage in a theory debate in front of me. 1) Don’t be a jerk about it. So, don’t run it against someone who doesn’t understand how to debate it or isn’t really being all that abusive. Running theory in these instances will result in low speaks. 2) Be thorough. Each part of the shell should be well developed and clear. I do not consider you’re a priori appeal for the ballot to be very persuasive unless you put some time in it. And, if I miss something because you’re blipping through the parts of the shell, it’s your fault, not mine. **Kritiks/critical arguments:** Here’s the thing. I tend to think these arguments are silly and unnecessarily convoluted. Most of them will not pass my BS meter. (If you’re debating a critical argument that you think is nonsensical, do not be afraid to say that. I’ll appreciate it and probably agree.) But, if you like running them and you think they are valid and appropriate for the topic (and I definitely think this happens---don’t be shy to use them if that’s the case!), explain them well enough for me to understand. I am not very well read on these subjects, and I will not vote on arguments I do not understand. **Policy arguments:** I understand the function of plans, counterplans, disadvantages, etc. You’re welcome to run them, provided their functions are clearly explained in the round. **Speaks:** I’ve already mentioned this a little bit. (Poor speaks will happen when you make my job difficult. Ie. Not weighing when the standard is “net benefits.” Bad speaks will happen when you irritate me by doing jerk things. Ie. Running theory against a novice.) But, in general, I will award good speaks based on how much I think you deserve to break. My favorite thing in the world is a persuasive decision calculus. Stay organized, and I’ll reflect my happiness in your speaker points. I welcome and encourage questions before and after the round!
 * Just some background information, in case it’s useful: **