Johnson,+Megan

//**Megan Johnson**// //**Iowa City West High School**// Last updated on 3/28/2014

Currently I am the director of debate (and a social studies teacher) at Iowa City West High School. I have been coaching at ICW since 2009 and previously coached at Dowling Catholic. I debated for four years (2001-2005) in high school for Le Mars (Iowa). I lead a 7 week juniors lab at the University of Michigan debate institute in the summers.

**I like counterplans, disads, and case debate.** Well-researched PICs are my favorite. The more specific your disad the better.

People seem to hate politics disads these days. I've always really liked them and ran it a lot myself. It's easy for many to dismiss it as stupid because so many debaters debate it poorly and rely on terrible evidence and generic link stories. Politics can be great if you take the time to cut evidence with warrants, provide a well-articulated, specific internal link story and figure out how to spin the story in areas it's lacking truth. Also, politics debates too often devolve into card wars - reading a couple of good cards on the uniqueness debate and providing me with some comparative analysis about the current political situation in relation to a bill or issue is a better way to go. The current political climate doesn't lend itself well to great politics disads but when there is a story, I would love to see that debate. Don't go for intrinsicness in front of me against politics unless it's dropped. If the NEG wins a link, that proves there is an opportunity cost to the plan.
 * I LIKE politics. **

Though sometimes necessary and/or strategic, I often find theory and T debates tougher to decide and prone to judge intervention.These debates need to have "impact calculus" too. For example, how does predictability interact with ground and which is more important? I like case lists in T debates but don't just tell me what your interp allows, tell me why those AFFs should be preferred. Conditionality is probably good but one CP, the status quo and a kritik probably allows enough flexibility for the negative. Blippy theory args might as well not be read.
 * I prefer substantive debates over theory and T debates. **

**I'm not your best judge if you like to run critical arguments.** I haven't read the lit; I don't coach my kids to run Ks; I didn't run them myself when I debated. I am not your most knowledgeable K judge. However, I do and will vote on them. I generally find myself weighing the AFF impacts and solvency against the NEG criticism and alt solvency so you'll probably be most successful if you are winning root cause claims and/or alt solves the case args. K debates are often too generic and I feel like the NEG isn't really saying anything; negatives need to apply the general theories in their evidence to the AFF specifically or I will probably vote on the more specific affirmative internal links and solvency.

There are very few rules in debate besides this, speech order and time limits. If you ignore this burden on the affirmative, it will be difficult to get my ballot.
 * You should defend a plan that affirms the resolution. **

I use tenths of points. 27.5-28 is pretty average for me. Above that and you did something to impress me. 29 or above and you really impressed me. Quality of arguments, technical skills and CX skills are all considered when assigning speaker points.
 * Speaker points**

I don't take prep for flashing but I'd prefer that the flash drive is coming out of your computer and being handed to the other team when you stop your prep time. I do understand that there are technology issues sometimes (your computer crashes, etc.) and will probably be very understanding under those circumstances. Taking too much time to flash will start to get on my nerves though.
 * Paperless debate**

It bothers me when judges call every piece of evidence after the round and reconstruct the entire debate, so I will try to avoid doing that. Arrogance really annoys me. Be funny, be competitive, but be nice.
 * Pet peeves**