Dailey,+Maddie

My name is Madeline Dailey. I am currently a junior debating for the University of Utah in parliamentary debate. My partner and I are ranked in the top 25 on the college circuit and I have been debating for several years.
 * Background**

I am not a houseplant and I am not your mother. I enjoy fast, hard, technical debate. Speed is not an issue, however for most debaters clarity is. You probably aren’t as fast as you think you are, so remember to enunciate clearly in order for me to flow your arguments the way you want me to. Do not forsake passion, ethos, or flare for speed. Individuality and passion will earn you better speaker points. Be sassy not rude.
 * Overvie**w

I am open to voting for any argument if it is well warranted and won in the round.

Because I don’t think anyone can be truly tabula rasa, I’ll do my best to lay out the way in which I evaluate debate and arguments as some are more difficult to win than others.

I love Kritik debate and am most comfortable as a competitor and judge at evaluating the K. However, there is a fine line between good K debate and poor K debate. I don’t want to dismiss people from running the K if they are new to the style because I believe that practice is essential to becoming a better debater. If you are new to the kritik, I will be happy to give you advice on your strategy after round. However, I tend to reward higher speaker points for debaters who demonstrate a thorough understanding and passion for K that is sometimes lacking in newer Kritik debaters. If you are new to the K, debate at your own risk. Still, if you haven’t read the literature behind your kritik, you may want to reconsider your strategy for the round. Failure to have a deep knowledge base in your literature leads to bad kritik debate. I read a lot of critical literature and am comfortable with most authors and arguments. I will most likely know what you are talking about and I will most likely understand your arguments as long as they are clearly articulated. If you’re not operating in a policy realm, please tell me why and win reasons as to why that is good. If you’re going to exclude policy impacts, your kritik needs a framework that helps me to evaluate how to weigh the round. Role of the ballot arguments help immensely in evaluating framework. Kritiks with policy alts are stellar.
 * Ks**:

NOTE: IF YOU RUN WIPEOUT THE DEBATE GODS WILL CRY AND FROWN UPON YOU AND I WILL BE A SAD PANDA.

Theory is one of my least favorite arguments to vote on, but that’s because I feel I have rarely seen it used advantageously and have more so seen it used in asinine ways. If you’re running theory as a time suck, I’m not the judge for you. I think there are more effective, offensive ways to win a round and your time is better spent in those areas. However, good theory debate is part of a larger strategy that forces the opposite team to make difficult decisions (double binds, etc). That is a form of theory debate I enjoy very much.
 * Theory**

Here’s how you win my ballot on theory:

I will vote on theory if you win your interpretation and standards. If your argument is that theory is needed to check abuse, tell me that I should vote on proven abuse and then demonstrate the abuse. If you’re arguing that theory is about competing interpretations, tell me that I should vote on competing interpretations and focus the majority of your debate on winning your interp and telling me why your opponents interp is wrong, bad for debate, etc.

If you really want to go for reasonability, tread carefully as I am very open to creative interpretations. I believe hard debate is good debate, and the question of “what is reasonable” seems infinitely regressive to me. However, if you feel like you can successfully explain, warrant, and demonstrate what is and what is not reasonable, then go for it. Winning standards is crucial in every instance. Standards are the warrants or reasons as to why you are winning the argument. Good standards are impacted and explained while bad standards are blips of “fairness” and “education” without explaining why those are important to the round and debate. If you don’t tell me why I should care about your arguments and standards, then I won’t.

I default to dropping the debater if they lose theory and/or topicality arguments but can be persuaded otherwise.


 * CPs, Perms, Plans and DAs**:

Go for it, bro. I don’t dislike any specific CP’s DA’s etc. etc. as long as they are 1. Theoretically legitimate OR 2. If they aren’t, you win why that’s good. Warrants are the first step to a good position, but comparing the warrants of multiple positions and telling me why it matters in the round is what will earn you good speaker points.

Permutations should have a net benefit if you are going to use them as an advocacy. If not, I default to perms being a test of competition

I generally award points between 26-29 with 27 being an average speech. I’ve given one 30 this year and it was in a policy round.
 * Speaker Points**

I award high speaker points for: 1. Efficient, technical debate 2. A demonstrated knowledge of current event issues and intricacies for policy debate and in-depth understanding of critical literature for kritiks.
 * Your speaker points will be dropped if you perform in a manner that is rude, racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. This activity isn’t always about winning, but about learning to respect and accept difference and growing as competitors.**
 * 3.** Warrant analysis and comparison.
 * 4.** Strategic decision making (collapsing to and winning arguments, etc.)
 * 5.** Humor and Sass

If you have questions on specifics, please feel free to speak to me before the round.