Allan,+Elizabeth

Elizabeth Allan Oct. 2009 I debated for Westminster for all of High School and now judge and coach for Westminster. I am currently a student at UGA. I am going to look at the flow first and the quality of your arguments. That means that I will evaluate a dropped argument as true and will value explanation over a tagline extension. I will call for evidence if I have to, but only if it is important in the round. I really value the quality of your explanations and your ability to explain your evidence. Impact calculus is very important, and I think that debates can be won or lost on an impact calculus. That said, I don’t want Timeframe, Probability, and Magnitude without explanation. Explain your arguments and make smart comparisons. I’m willing to listen to everything, and have voted on everything. Ultimately, I will vote for whichever team wins, not the one who runs my favorite argument. However my favorite debates to judge are ones with a strategic aff and specific disad, cp and case arguments. On Topicality, I will default to an offense-defense framework, but if the aff is persuasive on reasonability, I will vote on it. Also, I don’t like arbitrary T arguments. The neg needs to prove specific educational or fairness impacts. Also, team should have impact calculus on T debates, like any other debate. For example, tell me what ground you lose and why I should care about that. Counterplans: I’m generally neg on counterplan theory, unless the neg is really abusive (think 4 conditional counterplans or Ks). However, if the aff explains their argument, I will vote on it. Most counterplans are good, but I don’t like process Counterplans and Consult. Politics: I like politics. I ran it a lot in high school, but I think teams should do more work to create a specific scenario. I will be persuaded by smart aff arguments that point out holes in the DA. Kritiks: I didn’t run kritiks a lot in high school, but I will definitely vote on the k. Since I didn’t run them in high school though, make sure to invest time in explaining and impacting your arguments. If you are aff against the k, then I am very persuaded by case o/w the K, alt doesn’t solve the case or K impacts, and K doesn’t turn the case. Stylistically: Just a few things… Clarity over speed. Look at the judge. Be polite to each other. Try to stay organized. I hope that helps. If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask me before the round.