Milam,+Myra

Myra Milam Truman State University 6 years experience

I debated national circuit policy for four years in high school at Greenwood Lab and have done NFA-LD for two years at Truman State University. Note: I’ve only judged about ten rounds on this topic so be sure to make any topicality arguments clear and concise.

Topicality – I enjoy this debate if done well. I prefer proven abuse over potential abuse, but I don’t need proven abuse to vote here. Well-explained, carded interpretations/competing interpretations make it easier for me to vote for you, but well-warranted and logical we-meets can also serve you well.

Disads – This is my optimal debate. Turns case arguments and good impact calc will get you far, as will a specific link. A strong disad story paired at least with case defense puts you in a good position.

Counterplans – Be sure to make the competitiveness story clear to me. Other than that, I’ll listen to anything but prefer something case-specific over a generic consult story. I’m willing to hear a good theory debate, but it’s not my favorite debate to be had. This means if there are other things that you could go for and are just going for theory as a cheap shot, your speaker points will not reflect well.

Case – Good for you. I applaud negatives who are willing to spend the time mitigating case versus reading some nebulous disad/counterplan/critique. Offense gets you further than defense, but I think you should spend time making the affirmative defend plan regardless. Again, make sure your solvency/advantage defense is paired with an offensive reason to prefer the status quo or the counterplan.

Critiques – I have read them and have gone for them and will vote on them, but this is not my favorite debate to watch. If you think this is the most offensive strategy you have against the aff then go for it, but it seems to me that there are other arguments to be had. I am not well-versed in critical literature, nor will I pretend to be. I will listen to anything, but you need to do the work to explain the alternative or reason to reject the aff and what that gets me at the end of the day. It will only benefit you to make framework clash as opposed to two ships passing in the night.

I’m fine with speed but with that comes the responsibility for clarity. I’ll say clear three times – after that I stop flowing.

I value a respect for your opponents and for this activity, rudeness is unwarranted and unnecessary. I frown on judge intervention, so please make the debate as clear as possible. Happy debating!