McClure,+Elisabeth

Debate Experience High School policy debate: 4 years in Maryland College policy debate: 1 year at Emory

LD

I am not very experienced with LD. I have judged a few rounds before, and I have a general idea of how LD works, but not much more than that.

Because of my policy experience, I will probably be ok with you reading at whatever speed you want to. The other debater might not, though. If I can't understand you because you aren't clear, I will tell you to slow down. If the other debater asks you to slow down and you don't, I will probably lower your speaker points because you are being rude. In general, try to be respectful of the other debater, especially since different regions have different ideas about how LD works.

Otherwise, I will try to evaluate the arguments as well as possible. Be clear, and give good summaries, especially in the last two speeches. If you think you should win the round for a specific reason, tell me what that reason is. Comparisons are really important for me. Tell me why your case is better than the other person's. Tell me why you support your core value better than the other person supports his or hers. Tell me why better things would happen with your advocacy than without your advocacy. If you do this, I will probably vote for you.

Policy

I have been debating policy for 5 years. I worked at the Capitol Classic Debate camp over the summer, and have judged a few rounds afterward on the topic. I love impact analysis, so tell me why the world of your side is better than the world of the other team. Probably the most important thing to know is that I don't like voting for immoral arguments. I really don't want to hear a racism/patriarchy/suffering/nuclear war good round, and if you make me, I can't guarantee you'll win. I will probably have a lower threshold for the arguments the other team has to make to get my ballot. Keep that in mind.

T I love T. Debate it like a DA. If a 2A doesn't make a "we meet," "counterinterpretation," competing standards, and "reasonability good," the Aff is probably behind on T. I vote based on the flow, and if there's a link to the violation (meaning, you don't say, for instance, that they don't affect a topical country when they obviously do) and you're winning on the standards, you're in a good place. Likewise, the Aff can be in a good place if they're winning reasonability, have pretty good standards, and have a good we meet/counterinterpretation story. I'm ok with impact turning standards, like "overlimiting is better than underlimiting" or "extratopicality is good," but don't run Reverse Voting Issues. They're a waste of your time.

K Be ethical. Suffering isn't good, and as a Christian, there are some kritiks/answers to kritiks I really don't find compelling and don't want to hear. Besides that, I really like a lot of Ks. Capital, capitalism, security, biopower, fem IR, I'm fine with. Use your own judgment. I want to hear a good discussion of the alt and role of the ballot. I find that it helps the Neg if the k resolves some of the case impacts, or would solve the root cause to some of the harms in the 1AC plus external impacts. For the neg, win a link to the Aff, have a good impact analysis (normally the more the better), explain what your alt does, and make sure you're careful on the perm and theory debate. For the aff, it'll help you to either win a link or impact turn, and/or a perm. Also, I'll vote on case outweighs the k arguments. Unless I'm told otherwise, I think the Aff can weigh their case against a k.

Theory/Framework These are easiest to decide on when they are conceded. If you drop a theory argument that was either discussed in cross examination or definitely on the flow, that really isn't good for you. Otherwise, if you want me to vote on it when it isn't dropped, be clear on the standards debate. Tell me which standards outweigh theirs, if you have more standards (impacts) than they do, and if you think abuse has really been done. I almost always think real abuse is much worse than potential abuse.

CP These are pretty easy. If the Neg solves all or part of the Aff and is mutually exclusive in some way, even if it's through the net benefit, I give them a pretty high risk of the CP. The Aff should explain pretty clearly what the solvency deficits are, and why a perm shows that the CP isn't mutually exclusive, avoids the link to the net benefit, or is net beneficial. The Neg can have an internal net benefit or a DA, either is fine.

DA Extend each part of the DA in the 2NR. An overview would preferably tell me briefly what the story is and why I'll vote on it. The aff should be clear on why the case either outweighs the DA, captures the impacts, or whatever else your strategy is. As with all of the other positions, if you tell a good story in the rebuttals, that will probably be my RFD.

Feel free to ask before the round if you have any questions, and afterward if there is anything I can clarify. I will call for evidence if it's close, but otherwise, I would rather you tell me well enough what the evidence says and why it's important so that I wouldn't need to call for it. Read specific lines from the card if you really think it's good evidence, rather than just extending the tag.