Carroll,+Kate

general things: I believe that card clipping is a reason to reject the team, but you must have coherent evidence (audio/video recording). I do not and will not follow along with the speech docs. The team card clipping will get zero speaks. If you choose to stake the debate on this violation I will evaluate the evidence and if there is substantial evidence the team that card clips will lose the debate.
 * clarity is important and will be reflected in speaks. I will not hesitate to yell clear if I am having trouble understanding you.
 * I'll listen to anything, but in the spirit of best judging practices it's good to know that I am not the best judge for non-traditional debate and niche kritiks
 * in order to win the debate you must win the line by line
 * be nice to each other, will be reflected in speaks if you're a jerk to your partner/opponent
 * pet peeve- when sides call the advantages/off case different things. dont do that
 * tech over truth
 * if your overview is longer than 1 min it's no longer an overview, it's just a waste of your time. put the link overview on the link debate, the uniqueness overview w/the uniqueness debate, etc.
 * you must impact dropped args/args in general
 * generally think t is not a question of solvency, I am easily convinced that limits are good.
 * reading wipeout, schopenhauer, death good, and/or death cult in front of me is a waste of your time.
 * conditionality is meh, the argument for 3 being bad is a lot more compelling than 2 ill default to in round abuse. but will likely not be compelled to vote on two is abusive.
 * I'd prefer email chains to flashing 1) faster, 2) no worries about viruses and 3) easier to catch prep thieves
 * please introduce yourselves and come and shake my hand in the beginning of the round, I find debate to be an amazing community with the best part being that we get to meet so many cool people. Tell me a fun fact about you!! Not doing so will make me think that you're either A. RUDE or B. Not caring enough to read my philosophy. Neither will be optimal for you in the round.

do your thing, do it well and I'll vote for you.

I would rather you not read a plan text than read a meaningless plan text. Either be policy or don't be policy, the inbetween sacrifices a lot of offense.

I may be going through a sorts of renaissance about non-traditional debate. I don't know how I feel about it yet, so it is in your best interest to be apprehensive about reading those types of arguments in front of me (i.e. not a good judge for it). If you are a debater that reads these arguments know a few things: 1. I evaluate the debate from a policy perspective 2. I am not familiar with a lot of the typical arguments that are read, thus it is to your advantage to over explain those things to me. 3. you still have to win the line by line to win the debate, regardless if it is on FW or the aff. 4. you must answer all relevant theory arguments individually 5. "help" me flow, frame things from an impact/link/etc. perspective. 6. I believe it is in the best interest of all parties to disclose this type of judging information and be upfront about it. little rock central debated in front of me and did a wonderful job, one of the best debates I've seen.

if you have any questions for me, ask.

regardless: I will still vote for you if you win the debate. (absent any sorts of cheating/card clipping)

fun facts: my favorite topic in hs was the transportation topic I lost to one off t-its once as a sophomore big into joe biden favorite color is green my jam/pump up song is jesus walks

surveillance topic/2015-16 updates: still love the politics da, not really sure how much I like elections yet- seems too early. havent done a lot of research/involvement w/the topic, judged at michigan camp tournament still not the best judge for niche kritiks case debate case debate case debate case debate case debate case debate case debate case debate case debate case debate case debate case debate less likely to pull the trigger on theory issues debate is a game. treat it as such

oceans topic: I worked at northwestern over the summer and have a decent sense of the topic (judged ~20 rounds thus far)

currently coaching for Iowa City High School email me if there's any other questions katecarroll4[at]gmail[dot]com

Wayzata 14' University of Minnesota 18'