Cowger,+Mollie

I debated for 4 years for Hockaday in Dallas, TX on the local and national circuits, qualifying twice to TOC and three times to TFA State. I graduated high school in 2012 and currently attend Pomona College.

I’ll do my best to evaluate rounds as debaters tell me to; that said, here are some notes on my preferences.

-I default to a truth-testing paradigm but am open to arguments in favor of comparative worlds or other paradigms.

-It’s really good when debaters can compare arguments, especially when the comparison is specific. I’d rather see specific link and impact comparison than generic weighing (eg. broad magnitude and probability claims), but I’d rather see generic weighing than no weighing at all.

-You need to explain how different arguments on the flow interact with each other. Clear argument interaction is probably the easiest path to my ballot.

-Arguments need to be warranted. Usually, that means they need to be more than a sentence. You need to warrant an argument the first time it’s read; for example, you can’t read a blip in the AC and warrant it in the 1AR. If your strategy relies on blips, you should probably rethink your strategy in front of me.

-Please be civil to everyone in the room. If you’re being a jerk to your opponent, your speaks will suffer. If the situation justifies it, I am willing to drop a debater if his or her behavior is incredibly offensive. Just maintain a basic level of respect for your opponent and you should be fine.

-I will say “clear” if you’re being unclear or “slow” if you’re going too fast, but not more than 3 times. After that, it should be pretty obvious from looking at me if I’m not flowing. If I say clear, I also expect you to get clearer and stay clearer—it doesn’t mean talk comprehensibly for a few seconds and then go back to what you were doing before. I’m not outstanding at flowing speed: I can flow most of the speed on the national circuit, but if you’re one of the fastest debaters, you should probably slow it down a little bit.

-I enjoy good theory debates and appreciate developed link stories and argument comparison. If you are able to compare theory links, internal links, and voters well it’ll show in your speaks. I default to a competing interpretations paradigm if neither debater makes paradigmatic arguments regarding theory. Any implication of theory, be it drop the debater or drop the argument, must be warranted. I am willing to evaluate RVIs. Please don’t run that fairness doesn’t matter in front of me. I’ll evaluate the arguments but your speaks will suffer. Arguing that fairness is a reason to drop the argument rather than the debater is fine. Extemping a theory shell is fine but if you do this, it would be in your best interest to have a written out interpretation.

-If you’re reading critical arguments, you need to slow down. You should also summarize the warrants in cards after you read them if they’re confusing. I won’t vote on arguments that aren’t explained clearly in the first speech.

-I’m willing to call for evidence if a specific internal warrant in a card comes into question, in situations where the outcome of a part of a debate is contingent on whether something was present in the card, or in other situations where the specific rhetoric of the card is relevant to the decision. Otherwise, I’ll vote off what I have flowed.

Speaker points:

30: You should win the tournament

29-29.5: You should make it to later outrounds

28.5: You should break

28: You did well and should have a winning record

27-27.5: You debated decently and should break even

26-26.5: You debated at a below average level

25-25.5: You debated poorly

<25: Only given for offensive behavior or argumentation

If you have any questions, feel free to ask!