Hughes,+Katie

My name is Katie Hughes and this is my Katy Perry-digm. I debated for Immaculate Heart High School in Los Angeles for 4 years, qualifying to the TOC my senior year. I debated on both the local and national circuits.

Short, sweet, and to the point: do whatever you want (speed is fine), but try not to make stupid or offensive arguments. Have fun with your battle for the ballot.

But if you want to get to know me better…

Theory: I default to competing interpretations. Unless persuaded otherwise, you need to have a cinterp to have winnable offense on theory. I will evaluate theory according to reasonability, but you must provide me arguments for doing so. Typically I evaluate theory based on a reciprocal punishment approach (if there is minimal abuse, or the theory is blatantly frivolous and strategic, I’m more likely to drop the argument, but if the abuse is egregious, then I’ll default to dropping the debater). This is just the case if it is unclear in the round whether it is a matter of drop the argument or debater. I’ll try my best not to intervene, but if theory is a wash, that’s how I evaluate it. Also, you have to specify if you get an RVI or not. Winning a counter interp is not sufficient to winning the debate. Caveat: I’m not a fan of “frivolous” theory, but I will vote on it. The more frivolous the theory, the worse your speaks – so choose wisely.

Framework debate: I read dense philosophical cases in high school. That being said, that does not mean that I will understand *your* dense philosophical case at 350 wpm. I will probably be fine with whatever framework you read, but be clear as to what it means. If you’re reading stock utilitarian or deont frameworks, then go right ahead as fast as you please, but if you’re reading something a little bit more dense, be explicit. You will probably understand your noncognitivist position slightly better than I do, and if your goal is to confuse your opponent, just make sure I’m not confused in the process. You have to win your framework to have access to your offense, so make sure you’re cleanly extending both aspects of your case.

Policy style arguments: I’m fine with plans, CPs, DAs, etc: Plans should be topical! This should go without saying, but it’s abysmal when debaters read nontopical plans. I’m very open to topicality, and the more “out-there” the plan is, the more likely I am to vote on T. Also, make sure it’s clear whether your disad is liner or a brink disad because it will make my job of evaluating the round much easier. PICs are probably pretty abusive, but if you make a case for why yours isn’t then I’ll listen to it (I mean, I have to listen – that’s what I’m being paid for). Also, as a matter of strategy, not logic, I think affs probably deserve an RVI on T, but you should justify this in round.

Kritiks, performance positions, micropol: I’m not so much a fan of these arguments as some judges might be. If you’re a primarily K debater, you probably should not pref me highly. I think a debate round is the wrong forum to discuss certain issues, and I am more than happy to have an out of round discussion about issues of race and gender. I’m a female debater from a small school. That doesn’t mean I’ve experienced your form of oppression but it does mean that I know where you’re coming from and would like to help you. However debating about such things in the round puts the pressure on me to vote for you. Either I feel like a bad person for voting against you or your opponent feels like they got hacked against. I’m fine with topical Ks about the policy the aff implements, but I’m not a fan of resolution-inclusive Ks, and if you read a narrative or poems, I will probably roll my eyes at you, and if I vote for you, you may not get the speaks you’re looking for. I apologize in advance for my subjectivity, but hey, that’s the purpose of a paradigm.

Style: Speed is fine. Robot-policy-debater-turned-auctioneer-on-meth speed is probably not ok. There is a fine line between being assertive and being a jackass. Don’t cross it. Don’t you dare. This goes for both guys and girls. If I feel you’re creating an atmosphere that sounds like the verbal equivalent of AXE-spray, then you will get lower speaks. Don’t be flirtatious. Or creepy. DO NOT READ FLAT ONTOLOGY. I WILL DEFLATE YOUR SPEAKS FASTER THAN THE HINDENBURG.

Miscellaneous: Unfortunately bribery is not allowed because otherwise I would say bring me coffee for an auto 30 (don’t actually do this because it would put me in an awkward position). That being said, I’ll boost your speaks for Ke$ha references. I really hate stupid arguments, no matter how strategic you think they are. Don’t say your opponent is the starting point of all racism, and don’t worship Zizek like he’s a god. If you do silly things I’ll probably post about them, and when you’re a judge you can do the same. That being said, just make sure you have clear extensions, and have fun.