King,+Stephanie


 * Stephanie King **
 * Rufus King High School **
 * Milwaukee, WI **
 * Debate Experience: 4 yrs policy in high school, 10th ****year coaching policy and my 11th ****year judging **

1. Neg's winning T in front of me--explain standards/voters, literally list what you could not run bc they were so untopical 2. Counterplans that do not compete with the affirmative in some way-defeats the purpose. 3. Resolution-based plan flaw theory. Every time I’ve seen it ran, it’s presented in a way that punished the affirmative for being topical, which is something I’m probably not going to do. 4. If you run a K that is based upon discourse, and you engage in the discourse yourself, you will lose. e.g.-if you are running something like Ableism and use language that links to it, you will not win in front of me. Same goes for Ks whose alt links just as hard as the aff. Additionally, if you run identity arguments, please only run things you access. 5. My expectations for performance debates have shifted over the years (and will probably continue to each round I judge). At this point, I expect every 1ac to include some sort of advocacy statement/plan/course of action that I could considerably vote on and that allows the negative some form of ground to discuss. Also was not a huge fan of a perf round that I judged in which the proposed world included genocide. Having some form of role of the ballot/role of the judge is really helpful for me to know how I should evaluate your speech act (especially when the Neg reads framework).
 * Things to consider before running in front of me **

1. There is a difference between being persuasive/confident and being a jerk. If you chose to be the latter, your speaker points will be affected. 2. Saying “this argument makes no sense so I don’t need to answer it” is NOT responsive. Same with "case outweighs, now onto ___" -- you need to warrant this and extend your impacts. 3. Throwing jargon around, especially with regards to theory or critical debates. Most likely, I am familiar with your argument and completely understand what you are saying. However, that does not mean you can just throw around terms without demonstrating to me that you actually know what you’re saying. At the end of the round, tell me why you should win. I am open to hearing pretty much any argument. Give me the picture beyond the scope of the round we are in and tell me how IT impacts the world/society-whatever “IT” may be (AFF plan, CP, K alternative, DA, case turn, whatever). Good analysis is critical. By the 2NR, I expect negs to be focusing on the couple arguments that will win them the round, not everything that might stick (that's what the 1NC is for not the 2NR).
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">Things to probably not do **

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">Outside of debate, I was a drug counselor for three years, currently work as a behavior analyst, and have graduate degrees in psychology and behavior analysis. I mention this information because I've encountered teams that read arguments misquoting psychological theorists because these teams expect every judge to be pre-law. I will know that you are misquoting them, so please don't do it.