Datcu,+Maria

Background: I debated on the national circuit for 4 years at Berkeley Prep, in Tampa, FL. Currently attending Boston University, not debating in college, coaching a policy team part time.

Basics: I currently coach debate, so I am fairly familiar with the hs topic. However, I haven’t seen that wide of a variety of cases, so explain what you are talking about. I am okay with speed, and as long as you are clear, I will flow. Affirmative wise, extend your case throughout the round if you want to claim advantages in the last speech, otherwise I am not doing the work on the flow for you. I love some good impact calculus, so don’t forget your impacts half way through the round. If you at the end of the round you forgot your affirmative, I will err neg for the status quo. I am not a fan of non-traditional affirmatives. If you are going for theory, please prove in round abuse, otherwise it is not likely that I will vote for it. On the negative, I do tend to lean policy, but I have experience with kritik arguments. That being said, I dislike 1-off K debates. If you are running a K, I expect you to be able to explain it to me, regardless of any prior knowledge I may have of it. I will usually call up cards if the debate revolves around the validity of certain cards. At the same time, I don’t like judge intervention, so I prefer those issues be resolved on the flow. Args that I will not be evaluating in your favor: Racism good, sexism good, Holocaust denial, and anything else I deem egregiously offensive. I am predisposed against performative arguments, I don't believe they are competitively equitable and I will be more sympathetic to frameworks that require reading a plan text. I find topical affs far more friendly, than performance affs that can be run on every topic. In terms of debate manners, please don’t steal prep, I will not allow it, and mark down your speaks. If evidence is asked for, please find it, and don’t let it just get lost in a mound of papers. __ALWAYS SIGN POST__ and please give a road map, the more I know where you are going, the more I understand your train of thought. Don’t be rude in cross-x, and keep things civil. Any overly aggressive cross-x will result in point deductions.

My random things: You have to earn your speaker points. Bossing your partner around, or making the round activity unpleasant will exponentially decrease your speaks. I will yell “clear” if you are whispering into your computer screen. At the same time be comfortable, and please stand up if it’s not too difficult. Please sign post, otherwise, by the time I scramble for flows, I will have missed the crucial argument you just talked about. I will do my best to listen, so please do your best to explain. At the end of the round, weigh your impacts carefully, and give me specific reason why you are winning the round. Technical debate jargon is only half the battle, explaining how those awesome things are winning you the round is also really important.

The specifics:

Theory: these debates should be more than block reading, prove abuse, and prove why I should vote down a team simply for the argument they ran. If this is your rebuttal argument, it should be the focus of the speech. Take your time with explaining it, and proving the in-round abuse and why it’s a voter. Again, I am not a fan of judge intervention, so keep that in mind. T: if you want a T debate, please have it be more than 20 seconds of blurb, do the work on the flow.  I haven’t judged many T debates, and they haven’t been very diverse. Please slow down and do a good job explaining both the violation and why your definition is better. Also, I believe in reasonability, so make a good case if you are going to go for T. If you think that is your winning argument it should be the ONLY focus of your rebuttal, otherwise it is not likely to be a winning argument. K: I dislike generic K's that link to most or all affirmatives across many topics. I prefer that your K is specifically linked to some plan action, rather than being a generic kritik of the topic or a kritik of omission because your opponents didn't talk about something in the 1AC. Reading 8 mins of cards with no explanation as to what each has to do with the other is not a K, it’s just a really boring exercise in wasting our time. I don’t know too much about all the philosophy literature you read, so please explain what you are reading. If you are reading Heidegger for 8 mins at 6 words/ sec, it is likely that my flow of your speech will be minimal, and will include more doodles. Also, when addressing a perm on the K, please clearly explain why it doesn’t work, beyond theory arguments. It is not likely that I will vote for the K, if the K and the aff can coexist in the same world. On framework, I do lean aff, and believe that they should weigh their case. I did run Ks a great deal in high school, so convincing me to vote on a K framework is not a lost cause. CP: The status of the counterplan is up for theory debates, I have no personal bias. Plan inclusive counterplans should have a really awesome net benefit, otherwise, I don’t see it as a strong argument. PICs should always be really well explained, especially if they have a certain outlandish nature. By all means run them, but please remember that I also need to know what you are talking about. On that same note, make sure you have a net benefit, and make it very obvious. Again it is up to you to explain it to me, this is definitely an area where I refuse to do the work on the flow for you. DAs: I have no specific preferences. My one demand is that the link actually links. Overly generic links will not have much weight with me, but again if the aff does not mention it, I will not write the argument for them on the flow. If you are going for the DA, there should be a lot of impact calculus. Also, make a wise choice if you rebuttal consists of a mix of arguments. Too many arguments can easily decrease the magnitude of your big bad impact. Please weigh your impacts versus the affs, and prove that doing the plan is the worst possible scenario ever.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at maria.datcu@gmail.com.