Smalling,+Kaitlin

I debated three years for Ridge High School in NJ. I like to think I was a very basic debater. I ran unique and nuanced frameworks. Traditional and fast is my favorite style of debate; however, I do believe in things like T to check back abuse. I am huge on weighing and warrants…I really, really like these and the more clash you create, the more you learn. I became more comfortable with tech debates in my senior year, but am open to listening to them because I think they serve a good purpose. More importantly, I liked debate because it gave me a voice. So, for 45 minutes, you have my attention. Don’t waste it and have fun!
 * Background: **


 * Short Version ** : **I will listen to almost anything insofar as it is not offensive, not false, and presented at an audible speed.**

I am not a mean person, so please, I don’t want to watch you be mean to your opponent. What that means is as follows: - Don’t run theory on a novice, second year debater, or anyone who is unsure of what is going on. Exercise decency. I will vote off the argument, but I will definitely not like or respect you as a person. If you do this, your speaks will tank and you will owe your young opponent food for the rest of the weekend. - I do not care if you stand up or sit. Do what you want. Your words matter more. - I do not care if you have a laptop or a million papers. - CX is binding. Period. If you get a really great concession during it, repeat it or say it loudly so I catch it because I don’t flow CX. - Extensions are mandatory and you will do very well with me if you make implications off your extensions. - I will not vote off an argument that I don’t understand. - Dress like you’re going to a tournament; otherwise, it’s disrespectful. You are not above others, so don’t dress like you think you are. - Sportsmanship please! Win gracefully and lose gracefully.
 * Long Version: **
 * The necessaries: **

I think this is where debate started, so these debates are great and not to be looked down upon. Some of the questions these traditional frameworks raise have been asked for centuries and good luck resolving them in a 45 minute round. I will admit I haven’t read as much as others, so make sure you make sense please. This also means that weighing is absolutely essential and if you don’t do it I will probably whine aloud. Tell me what you’re doing with these arguments aka tell me what offense links to your standard. I already did my time in debate, don’t make me do work for you. Also, try to diversify the framework so I don’t listen to endless util frameworks that all have the exact same authors carded. Make yours unique, but by all means, run these arguments.
 * Framework/Philosophy: **

Please, as a philosophy minor, I want you to throw these arguments at me. Do it. However, you have to be slower and precise with it since I’m not entirely used to the jargon. I want to hear the warrants clearly and repeated. There is a hell of a lot of interesting lit and don’t let it go to waste. But at the same time, I need an alt. It is crucial and I will not vote off a k that does not have an alt. I also don’t consider an alt “reject the aff mindset”. Anything but that please.
 * Ks: **

While I think these type of arguments are genuinely interesting, I don’t think debate is necessarily the forum for these discussions. Unless your opponent is literally being a racist, homophobe, or sexist, please just don’t do this or if you feel like you must, i hope it's make a fantastic argument. (Although I guarantee your opponent isn’t actually one of these, so don’t put words in their mouths). If something is actually wrong and uncomfortable, I will stop the round prior to you calling it out in your speech. I do believe debate is a way to provide solutions to larger societal problems; however, don’t make my role as a judge solving these issues. Instead, my job is simply to decide what happened inside of the round. If I must, I will consider these arguments, but because you are deviating from the traditional role of the ballot, please give me a model I can evaluate offense under and a proactive reason as to why I should prefer it.
 * Micropol / Role of the Ballot: **

I think speaks have as much to do with the argument as the argument itself does for the round. I will base my speaks on how well you strategize your speech to make me want to vote for you. Lay it out for me, please. My scale is as follows: A 26 or below means I think you’re a horrible person in addition to a poor debater (I’m sure you aren’t, so make sure you show me that). 26.5 – 27 shows that you could have done better – you were a little messy. 27.5 is average – nothing special. 28 is a pat on the back and job well done. A 28.5 - 29 you should leave the room smiling. And a 30 is given to someone I think will win the tournament.
 * Speaks: **

Go for it. I think it makes us all more attentive and more efficient listeners. Remember, I haven’t heard a debate round since May 2014, so my ear has to become acclimated again, so please don’t start off at top speed. Warm me up to it and you can go 100% if you want. But, as usual, make sure you’re clear. I’ll say clear twice but that’s it and then I’ll start deducting speaks and / or stop listening. If you see me put my pen down and look at you, that isn’t good and means you’re going too fast for your (and my) own good. I also judge off the flow. That means signpost. If I have a floating argument, I won’t guess what I should do with it. My flows are good and are also my deciding factor, so it's in your favor to help me keep them that way.
 * Speed: **

I only became more comfortable with these arguments in my senior year and have not heard them in more than 6 months, so be wary of this if you’re going to run them. That means don’t use complicated jargon. But even so, I do have an understanding of these arguments. Please use them when appropriate (and a lot of the time, I think they are 150% necessary). I also have a thing for substantive clash, so please, please engage in it. The following are a few of my opinions: I default drop the argument unless you tell me otherwise. I think RVIs are only appropriate when paired with drop the debater. Offensive counter-interps, however, are also appealing to me only if they have an RVI. Multiple shells (more than two) are borderline laughable and makes me think you’re reading them because you don’t know how else to fill the time. I’m sure you’re all bright enough to cover any abuse in one or two shells. If you use an abnormal voter, please just explain what it means to me. Finally, the interpretations need to be written out in their entirety and read more slowly so I know what in the world you’re talking about.
 * T/Theory: **

I have no problem listening to it in the first 30 seconds of a case as a security net; however, please don’t default to presumption. I think it’s silly to win a 45-minute round off of two words extended at the end of a speech. However, if no other choice is given, I may be convinced by these arguments, so cover your bases. I am not accustomed to tricks and probably will not flow them well unless they are super clear and audible. I simply don’t get skep. If you’re going to run it, you’re going to have to make me understand what is going on and why you're doing that. I’m not your judge if you’re going to do this.
 * Presumption / Tricks/ Skep: **


 * I’m happy to talk about anything from the round, listen to re-dos, give advice if I can, or just talk about arguments or the topic in general if you want! So please come find me! Have fun and good luck !** ** J **