Mandarino,+Libby

Updated 06/15/16

School strikes: Marist

Email me at libbymandarino@gmail.com if you have any questions.

I haven't judged many debates on this topic. Don't assume I know what's going, and don't use super specific acronyms.

__Topicality__ Honestly, I really don't enjoy judging T debates. Obviously, that doesn't mean you shouldn't read it, but slow down and be specific. If you're neg, I want to see a topical version of the aff and a case list. Generic claims of ground loss are annoying - explain specifics. I find reasonability arguments pretty compelling. The impact debate is very important - have a vision of what the world of your interpretation looks like and explain why it's better than the other team's.

__Theory__ Slow down. I think that more than 2 conditional advocacies is abusive.

__Kritiks__ The link is the most important part of this debate for me - invest a lot of time there. If you're going for something weird, be sure to spend more time explaining it for me. I hate generic kritiks, but I enjoy specific kritiks that interact a lot with the case.

__Non-traditional__ I enjoy these arguments, but I need to know what I'm voting for and why. I don't enjoy generic framework debates - make it specific to the round.

__Misc__ I don't like reading cards after the round unless I really have to. I tend to default to how debaters characterize the cards in the round.

If you are debating against younger/less-experienced debaters, I will lower your speaker points if you are rude and/or condescending. Being nice and respectful will increase your speaker points a lot in these situations.

I need evidence of clipping to vote on it - video or audio recordings.