Arungah,+Alixandria

Years debated : 4 Last POLICY debate – 2013 Judging HS Policy Debate since: 2012

I debated as a 2A/1N for most of my debate career. I have run all arguments but gravitate towards arguments that discuss race and gender, as these are important subjects to me. However, I appreciate a good straight "policy" debate and have no problem watching non-critical debates. Creative, logically presented and well executed arguments are ultimately easier and more enjoyable to watch than a debate lacking criteria for analysis, or a framework that allows both teams to state what they believe to be the truth without analysis or comparison. I try to be a blank sheet and let you decide how I should vote, but I will naturally compare what you say to what I know or believe to be true. This means that if you say something i consider to be factually incorrect, it decrease your ethos. That does not mean that I don't think you can educate ME in a debate. I am mostly flow oriented in my decision making and do my absolute best not to vote you down for things the other team does not say. But, be detailed - my understanding of certain literature might allow me to understand the unstated intricacies an argument, but my lack of knowledge on another might mean that i do NOT catch the nuances of your argument the way you hope. Don't JUST use buzzwords. The best way to make sure I don’t intervene is to make sure I UNDERSTAND your argument, so EXPLAIN. This is particularly important on the micro level when debating PICs, ADV Cps, etc.

Warrant and compare your your arguments, close as many doors as you can in the debate. and be clear about it. Impact calc and internal link contestations and explanation are the key things i look at in determining who won.

I understand the idea of debate as a performance in multiple ways: 1) The debate space can allow for music, poetry, etc but as said above, please establish a framework or lens that allows me to determine why you should get the ballot, and why your debate is important, and why/how you meet that burden. 2) On a broader scale, switch side debate and changing what you argue is an example of performance in which you have to get someone else to believe with certainty what you are saying. Despite being flow oriented I expect to be convinced that your arguments are better than your opponent's, rather than making a decision based off technical issues. I will be honest I hate theory debates (with the exception of topicality) only because I find them awful to flow and even more awful to evaluate the 16 sub points are often not fleshed out or compared in a way that offers a compelling conclusion. In this case, esp if the theory debate is shallow, I tend to err aff. I hate having that bias but my voting record speaks for itself. I look to evidence for two reasons – to make sure the warrants your extending are true and in cases where the debate isn’t fleshed out enough, to determine who is (more) correct in their analysis.

I appreciate a lively debate in which people seem passionate, and love humor to alleviate the sometimes overly aggressive atmosphere in debates. Just some ideas if you are looking for ways to get good speaks with me. As a general rule, I defer to an offense-defense paradigm, unless told otherwise. I think debate is GOOD, unless told otherwise. Debates should be fair and educational. You might want to tell me what "fairness" an "education" actually are, though. Yes, speed is fine. Yes, you can go to the bathroom. No, I will not be timing your speeches or prep.