Oxborough,+Sam

Samantha Oxborough Head Coach at Humboldt High School, St. Paul Minnesota (Affiliated with the MN Urban Debate League), 1 year Former Assistant Coach at Eagan High School, Eagan Minnesota, 4 years Attended High School at Eagan High School, debated 4 years. Attending College at the University of Minnesota, debated 1 year. Rounds judged this year: 40-50 Number of years judging: 5

I am prone to judge rounds from a conservative, policy framework perspective. With that said, I am willing to listen and vote on anything. I want people to debate intelligently rather than adapt to my judging preferences, therefore, consider my vague opinions as grounds to experiment.

Topicality: I would consider myself to evaluate topicality on the basis of competing interpretations. The more interesting the violation and the standards the better. I prefer an offense/defense method of argumentation on the standards with specific reasons to vote. I will vote on potential abuse if articulated.The problem with topicality debates I've seen recently is the lack of precision and variation of "standards" arguments. I think it's crucial for both sides to tell a story with T, like any disad or counterplan.

Counterplans: Love a good counterplan. My favorite debate argument is an interesting PIC with a good net benefit.

Critiques: I am familiar with a lot of literature regarding critical theory and am open to both critiques on the neg and aff. It is the debaters responsibility to bring the argument past the name of the author and catchphrases and outline specific warranted arguments. I do typically vote neg on the critique. This is not because I necessarily buy the alternatives, rather, affs lack the cohesive story that the neg is afforded through the shell. I think that affs more often than not, opt out of crucial offense on critiques for more arbitrary defense; articulated offense, clearly addressed levels of a critique is crucial to winning the position.

Theory: If it's well articulated, I will vote on it, no matter what. Regardless of how blippy an RVI was explained in the 1AR, if the neg doesn't answer it, the 2AR extends it, it's an aff round. For clarification, I enjoy interesting theory, but it needs two things. First, to be explained with a simple sentence. For example, "perm is severance" is not an argument; "perm is severance because..." is the beginning of one. Second, it must be impacted.

Speaking: I can handle speed, just don't start too fast out of the gate (especially if it's the first round, for the love of God). Also, I still flow on paper so allow me to get the sheets organized while you speak your road map and switch between positions.