McDonald,+Meridith

Athens High School '14 The University of Texas at Austin Rounds judged on the surveillance topic: 20

I consider myself to be pretty open to any well warranted and well articulated argument. This is your debate, so I care more about the execution of your arguments than I care about what you choose to run.

1. I default to evaluating arguments in an offense/defense paradigm unless provided an alternative method of evaluation. 2. Arguments need a claim, warrant, and impact. Pleeeaaaassseee make sure you have these things, especially when you're extending an argument because I won't grant you shadow extensions. 3. Especially at the end of the debate, make arguments the way that you want me to give my RFD or make my decision. This mitigates the chances of me having to intervene after the round and gives me a perspective of not only WHAT you win a debate but HOW you win. 4. You can go as fast as you want in front of me but a) DO NOT sacrifice clarity for speed, and b) slow down on tag lines, procedurals, and when reading the text of counter advocacies. Don't make this difficult for me. 5. Spin of a piece of evidence is more important to me than quality of the evidence. I would much rather hear really awesome evidence comparison and great articulation of an "okay" or "decent" piece of evidence than weak analysis done on an amazing piece of evidence. 6. Don't say anything discriminatory or clip cards, or your speaker points/my decision will reflect it.
 * Random Stuff —**


 * Specifics —**


 * T:** I default to a competing-interpretations method of evaluation. If you do not have an abuse story and you want me to vote for this particular argument, I need a well impacted reason why you provide a better model for education, a better world for debate, etc.


 * Theory: ** Needs an impact . There are very very few circumstances for which I think a team should be rejected as a consequence of their conception of a fair/educational debate. Rest assured, I will grant a rejection of the argument if successfully warranted/impacted. Also, be smart about the theory you chose to read. Will I vote on condo bad when the negative team only read one conditional position? Probably not.


 * Kritiks:** This was usually what my 2NR was in high school. Don't assume I know your authors, but don't let this discourage you from running the position. If you are providing a clear articulation of this argument on every level, especially the alternative, I'll be perfectly fine. A good negative block will also contextualize the K to the affirmative it is critiquing.


 * Counterplans:** They're fine as long as they have a good net benefit and solve at least some of the affirmative.


 * Disads:** They're fine. "Turns case" analysis and deep comparison of internal links are really necessary for me.

meridithelise@gmail.com
 * Additional questions?**