Stickna,+Erica

=Assistant Debate Coach at Fort Lauderdale High School (since 2014) =

Graduated from UCF Bachelor’s in English Literature, Minor in Women’s Studies

 * *If you say offensive things in round without any acknowledgement/apology, such as using the words “retarded” or “gay” as a way to call something “stupid” or “bad” I will drop you. The end.* **


 * PRONOUNS MATTER. PLEASE DON'T MAKE ME INITIATE THIS CONVERSATION IN ROUND BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT RESPECTFUL. **


 * UPDATED 10/27/2016 **

LD Paradigm: (scroll down for PF)

 * __**Speed**__: Speed is fine as long as you speak clearly. Slow down on taglines and card names. I will say "clear" or "slow" if you are going too fast, but if it does not improve, I will not be able to flow. Slow down on anything that you find to be really important because if I don’t flow it then I won’t know it. Your best bet is to include me on your email chain. This also saves time in round.
 * __** Arguments **__: I'm open to any arguments you’d like to run. I’ll vote on what you tell me to vote on. I try to be as non-interventionist as possible, so make sure you are doing the work in round to crystallize and weigh. In terms of my preferences, I like performances and K debate more than dense theory rounds, but I also want you to do what works best for you. Regarding K debate, the one thing that I will say is that your alt should not be something like “reject the Aff.” There should be some substantive alternative if you choose to engage in this type of debate.
 * __** Theory **__: Theory is fine if there’s abuse in the round, but your theory arguments shouldn’t be frivolous or a way to exclude others from the debate space. (Don’t run it as an easy way to win against an opponent who you don’t think understands it.) I feel pretty strongly about this. I'll listen to theory and vote on it, but I'm so sick of hearing the same shells read in every single round on every single topic, so don't be a jerk about it. RVIs are fine with me - it’s your round, not mine. I’ll vote on RVIs if you tell me to but you definitely need to have warranted arguments, I don't just default to RVIs without you doing the work. With “I-Meets” I expect at least a little bit of an explanation. If your opponent made the effort to make the argument in the first place, you should do at least a little work to explain why you meet – don’t be lazy.
 * __** Speaker Points **__: Generally, I will award points based on how clearly you articulate your thoughts. However, I will deduct speaks for inappropriate or overly aggressive behavior. I have no problem awarding a low-point win or at least docking your speaks if you are too rude or obnoxious in round.
 * __** Extensions **__: These need to be real extensions if you want me to flow them. You can’t just go around shouting “EXTEND” to everything on the flow – what am I extending and why? Don’t be lazy.

Ariel Olson - https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Olson%2C+Ariel I tend to agree with most of the things they say, and they definitely shaped my understanding of LD more than any other person.
 * If you want to know more about how I view debate, or LD in particular, check this out:**

If you have any further questions, feel free to ask me in round.


 * PUBLIC FORUM: **

Anything in my LD paradigm that could apply to PF still stands, but here are more specifics. I really try not to intervene, but I find it a little more difficult in PF so please do the following if you’d like a fun round and a solid RFD.


 * Weighing : I will weigh arguments however you tell me to. I really like framework but I know that’s less common in PF. If you read observations/definitions in your constructive and they go cold conceded, that’s how I’ll default to evaluating the round. That doesn’t mean I’ll do the work for you, so you still have to weigh impacts against this.
 * Extensions : First off, an extension includes warrants. If you don’t tell me what I’m extending and why, I won’t do the work for you. I also have a strong disdain for debaters telling me to extend through ink. Just saying “EXTEND” won’t get you anywhere. Also, arguments/responses should be extended through summary and final focus.
 * Warrants/Evidence : I really don’t like blippy pieces of evidence (or blippy responses). If you just start shouting numbers or claims in round, without any warrants, I’m not so inclined to buy it. I rarely call for evidence, but I will if I am familiar with that evidence and think you’ve misconstrued what the card actually says. Also, if your evidence has been called into question and has not been sufficiently clarified in round, I will call for evidence.
 * <span style="font-family: inherit; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle; vertical-align: middle;"><span style="font-family: open_sans_bold; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle;">CALLING FOR CARDS IN ROUND : I’m alright with it during round and during prep, but please do not be ridiculous. I will not allow for my round to hold up the tournament because you’ve spent 20 minutes “looking for the PDF” or “trying to log back into JSTOR.”
 * <span style="font-family: inherit; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle; vertical-align: middle;"><span style="font-family: open_sans_bold; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle;">Humor/Speaks : Some light humor, sarcasm (when funny but not rude), and even clever phrasing/using song lyrics can be fun in round and might even earn you a few extra speaks. Don’t force it though – you will probably sound dumb and make the round awkward.