McCurley,+Elizabeth

Debate Coach Assistant Coaches: Austin Vance (UCO) Edmond, OK
 * Elizabeth McCurley **
 * Edmond Santa Fe High School **

I am generally willing to vote on anything. I feel that I should give you some information on my debate background and where I stand on certain arguments.
 * __Policy Paradigm __**:

T/Theory/Procedurals- I am willing to listen to these. I generically accept that affirmatives should fall within some jurisdiction that the topic outlines. I will listen to reasons why the resolution is bad and that there are arguments and topics of discussion that supersede the topic. I'll generally default to buying that negatives have some level of acceptable conditionality and that "multiple worlds" are fine for negatives to play within. This doesn’t mean that I won't vote for Condo Bad, but I need to see in round abuse. I don’t buy potential abuse arguments. I will vote on T or Theory debates, but you will have to spend time on them and telling me why I should vote on them. I am looking for a good end of the round story. 

CP debate- I'll listen to multiple counterplans. You should know that I typically believe that counterplans are the negatives way of trying to be affirmative, but I will vote on them if the net benefit story is good. I buy that the affirmative has to defend all parts of the plan.

DA's I prefer specific link arguments but I don’t think that a non-unique is enough to get the affirmative out of the DA debate. The impact scenarios should be able to compete with the specificity of the impact scenarios of the Aff. I believe that in the context of debate Nuke War isn’t necessarily a bad thing, so you need to give me that story.  CASE NEG I prefer to have case neg in round because then I don’t end up voting Aff on presumption. FRAMEWORK: I like framework arguments. I think that they help to stop judge intervention and they always give me a clear way to vote. However, you must extend framework throughout the round. I also enjoy watching competing framework debates. If you run that a specific type of discourse should win the round you need to define it. You don’t want me to define ethical discourse for you.

K's (non-performance) I am a K debater at heart and I tend to buy that most affirmatives link to the K. Here is where I get into specific arguments because of personal beliefs I tend to lean towards certain arguments. I feel that in all fairness I should tell you this so that you don’t come in round at a disadvantage because your affirmative. Natives- I definitely by the decol of the mind argument but you need to show me how decol of the mind works for me to buy the argument and weigh it in round. Aff: you need to make arguments about how natives aren’t key or how they make the problem worse. I also tend to buy the idea behind language K’s. I believe that discourse shapes reality and that our word choice matters. I will vote against it however, especially if the neg bites their own discourse K.

K's of the performance type, or of the "change the game" type:

I love these arguments. Two things need to happen for me to vote on them though. If you are out to change debate then I need to see it in round. Secondly, I need to see how you outweigh the other team’s arguments. You'll have to win what can change, but I feel like in order to vote for these types of claims that at some level I can conceptualize what debate //could be // if we adopted a new method.


 * __Speaker Point breakdown __**: I award points based on clarity and good articulation especially in rebuttals. Speed is fine. I will deduct points for rudeness. If I see you "tooling" a partner, it reflects on you and your speaker points. Humor’s nice when it’s coupled with good debates.