Do,+Monica

Affiliation: USC Debate Years in debate: 8 Years judging: 4 Rounds on this topic: 6?

My default view of the debate is that of a policy maker who has to endorse a plan versus the status quo or a competitive policy option. If you don't talk about the topic, I'm not the best judge for you.

From there, I believe that you should do whatever is necessary to get my ballot. Debate, after all, is an educational game.

I try not to rely too much on the cards that you read and more on how you apply them to the debate. Good analytics are encouraged and appreciated.

Criticisms: the more specific the better. To be honest, I am not the most familiar with critical literature and to be more honest, I don't really like it. This doesn't mean that I will not vote on them, but it does mean that I will require a higher threshold of explanation, especially with regards to what the alternative looks like and how it interacts with the impacts of the affirmative. Going for the permutation in the 2AR requires that you have defense on most of the links.

CPs: are generally good. My exceptions are consult and agent CPs. I tend to doubt their pedogogical value in the activity, but if they're what you gotta say, they're what you gotta say. I just hope you have a hearty defense of them.

Theory: is a sorely underutilized tool for the affirmative, BUT this only counts if arguments are well developed. To me, that means slowing down in the constructives to allow pen time. If you go for theory, focus less on the "voting issue" and more for what your theoretical model means for the activity.

T: I evaluate through competing interpretations.

DAs: obvi yes. The majority of my debates have, in fact, been case and DA.

oh yeah, and don't be an ass.