Forte,+Melina

I debated for four years at the University of Pittsburgh. I graduated in 2007 and am now attending law school. I do not judge high school tournaments very often. I am here to judge for you, so debate how you want to debate, and make those arguments that you feel you handle the best. Whatever kind of arguments you chose to run, you should think about the big picture and weigh all the arguments in the round to tell me why you win.

T: I loved debating this when I debated. I think that topicality is a question of which interpretation is best for debate and will default to competing interpretations.

Disads: Great. I think you can beat the disad with a lot of good defense but that's very rare. Impact turns are fun and I have seen very little of them this year. Start your impact analysis in the constructives.

Counterplans: Also great. The same goes for impact turns here -- have not seen much of this, wish I did. I usually err negative on theory. Even with counterplans that most regard as suspect (consult, multiactor fiat, etc), I still think it is the aff's burden to convince me to vote against the neg; that is, I won't go into these debates having some kind of presumption that a certain counterplan is illegitimate. I also tend to think that I should reject the argument and not the team, so if you are going for theory, you should take the time to impact your theory arguments to justify rejecting the team. Also, I would caution 2ARs to remember that every time the negative does something they think is theoretically illegitimate, it probably gives the aff room to do something sketchy as well (for example, you may get the perm to do the counterplan, etc.). Don't be afraid to take advantage of this, especially in front of me -- I like to see debaters take risks.

K's: I like a clear alternative that does not change throughout the debate. I am unlikely to vote for your K if I do not understand what the alternative does. I also like specific links, and debaters who take the time to explain the specific links to the aff -- whether those links are coming from the 1AC, or cross-ex, or from somewhere else. If you're answering a K, don't forget about your 1AC! I don't like pointless framework debates. I think that framework can be important to telling me how to evaluate the arguments, but I do not regard it as the be-all end-all in defeating a K. Sometimes even under the aff's framework the neg still wins their critique. I also don't like K debates where there is no argument of the K but rather just infatuation -- just saying "epistemology," "ontology" or any other K buzz word is not enough; you've got to actually to do the work and use your K literature to make arguments. Note for critical affs: I guess I do have one bias -- I have no problem with your critical impacts and advocacy, but I think that you must run your critical aff in a way that affirms the resolution.

Last thoughts: You can be aggressive without being rude or disrespectful. Mean debaters or those debaters who think they are god's gift to the activity (but aren't) will not get good speaker points. Have fun during the debate -- and if you are having fun debating, I am sure I will have fun judging you. Good luck!