Luppes,+Amanda

I debated at Rosemount HS (MN) in policy/CX debate for 4 years, and did some LD/PF/speech. I went to the TOC, but also competed at smaller regional tournaments. I debated at Baylor University in policy/CX debate for 5 years. I qualified to the NDT twice and broke at both NDT and CEDA. I coached for 2 years at Baylor while getting my MA. I haven’t coached in the 2 years since then, but I have judged occasionally.

Since I didn’t coach or judge often, I am not familiar with the topic. If you want to go for T, you’ll need to explain topic limits and technical distinctions better. If you use topic-specific acronyms, tell me what they are the first time.

I ran all kinds of arguments when I debated, and I am familiar with and comfortable judging most argument types. I don’t care what kind of arguments you run. I want to see you do what you are best at. You have a limited amount of time to debate, don't take it for granted. Don't make decisions you'll regret because you are trying to pander. I do care about the way you treat people, so don’t be disrespectful or a jerk.

You must be clear. Debate is a communicative activity and if I can’t understand you, it doesn’t count. Almost everyone could benefit from slowing down a little bit to an understandable level, even if you are still speaking fast. If you make it miserable for me to listen to you, even if you win the arguments/round, you’ll see it in your speaker points. I like fast pace only when it is done well.

Here are a few of my quick thoughts on specific issues, but feel free to ask me more questions before the round.

I am sympathetic to framework arguments that Affs should have plans/advocacy statements and should defend something relevant to the topic. It doesn’t have to be 3-advantage-nuclear-war-impact, but it has to be something the Neg can predictably respond to. I find it much harder to vote for “no k’s allowed.”

I don’t think conditionality is a problem, unless the Aff can show serious abuse, like 12 1-sentence cps in the 1nc. Theory arguments like this mean reject the argument, not the team.

Not all evidence is equal; make comparisons about the source and author quality. Random blog isn’t the same as a peer-reviewed study or academic journal article. Likewise, evidence isn’t everything - a well-reasoned analytical argument beats a shitty one-sentence card anytime.

"Tag-team" CX is fine and I don’t have a problem if you ask clarifying questions during prep time.

I don’t like reading cards after debates - you should explain what the evidence means. If you don’t have enough time in your rebuttal to emphasize what matters about the evidence you name, you are going for too much. It is unlikely that I will call for evidence.

If you have a card highlighted and don’t read it all, it is your responsibility to mark it in some way. If it’s paperless, you are responsible for giving the other team a new copy of that evidence.

If you’re paperless, prep stops when you pull out the flash drive.