Schade,+Amy

Schade, Amy Background: I debated at Grapevine High School and I currently debate at the University of North Texas. Generally, I am a very flow centric judge and will pretty much listen to anything. I’ll get into my specific paradigms, but it is important to note that I find it particularly annoying when a team does not provide any warrants for your arguments. I’ll probably end up calling for your evidence after the debate, but your speaker points and/or credibility will be significantly impacted. Also – I think debate is valuable beyond it’s purely research oriented educational values – be nice to each other. Respect each other. Don’t be a jerk for no reason. Framework: I tend to default to a policymaker framework unless told otherwise. In these debates, I tend to believe it is a question of competing interpretations, unless you convince me otherwise. Topicality – By default, I evaluate topicality in a competing interpretations paradigm, and find that predictable limits are the most persuasive impact. That is not to say that I won’t vote on reasonability, but you’ll have to do more work, or provide a particularly compelling reason why it is a better way to evaluate T.  CPs – I really enjoy hearing a well developed and researched PIC debate. Just make sure you are explaining your evidence well and the strategy is coherent. I tend to err neg on the legitimacy of most counterplans, but can be swayed either way on conditionality and the competition on some agent counterplans. DAs – I like to hear well developed impact comparison and turns case arguments. This comparison should probably be made earlier than the 2nr and 2ar and be well warranted. I think politics disads are great, but generally like any type of disads. I am probably more well versed on these types of debates than some of the more far left Ks. Kritiks – I regularly go for kritiks, but I would probably characterize them as being pretty conservative Kritiks like capitalism or statism. I am willing to hear any type of these arguments so long as you are explaining what your links and impacts are and there is a clear extension of the alternative. You should probably explain what the role of the ballot is, or what the world looks like in the world of the alternative. I find it particularly annoying when K teams do not contextualize their links and impacts in relation to the aff that they are debating. BOTH teams should be using the aff as leverage against each other. AKA – make your links specific to 1ac cards/arguments, and affs – use your 1ac as offense against the K.  Theory – same as T really, and I don’t often think “no potential abuse” is a compelling argument. If you go for this, you shouldn’t just spread through your blocks – that is incredibly annoying. Slow down a bit, and you should probably go line by line if you actually want me to vote on this. I would prefer that you only go for this if a) it’s dropped, b) you have no other choices, or c) there is clear abuse.