Nordstrom,+Lindsay

Lindsay Nordstrom University of Oklahoma Experience: 3 years of college policy, at various times in novice, JV and open Rounds Judged This Year: 20ish I honestly don't have much to say that won't be a needless reiteration of every other (good) judge's philosophy. I've always been the sort of person who believes you should debate whatever you enjoy doing best…I've seen/been in endless numbers of policy, critical, performance, video, ironic, pointless rounds, so nothing is really off limits…I tend to leave my personal biases at the door. That said, I do believe a few key things are necessary to make debate more of an educational activity, and less me discreetly playing games on my computer while you drivel on about shenanigans.
 * 1) **On T**: "T is a voter!" is not a voter if you don't have a warrant. Is debate really going to collapse if I vote outside my “jurisdiction”? Will the tournament be called off as soon as my ballot is tallied, will negs forever be doomed to lose if I don't believe T is a “rule of the game”? I'm skeptical of this arg, and if you believe it, I'm probably skeptical of you too. There are good reasons to have some limits on debate… but you need to make the argument. This means having evidence and warranted, impacted standards (predictability and limits aren't impacts, they're internal links) supporting your interpretation, and a reason to vote.
 * 2) **On the K:** The biggest problem I've seen here is the K that gets too caught up in answering arguments and forgets why your own alt is important. I need to know why the alt solves the aff, or if it doesn't solve it, outweighs it on a systemic level. Don't waste time on your K-tarded blocks. I'm familiar with most poststructural, postcolonial, postmodern, postsensical authors. Down with debates on Nietzsche, Heidegger, Bataille, Baudrillard, Foucault, Agamben, D&G, H&N, Zizek (psychobabble and cap hating), Lacan, Edelman, Sedgwick, Said, Churchill, Deloria, Sartre….well, this could (?) get really long and pretentious, so suffice to say, just read your K. But understand it and don't fall back on meaningless jargon.
 * 3) **Performance:** I'm quite a fan. I've both run and seen this argument several times. Be ready to explain the impact to having poetry/narratives in the round, and don't try to play it like an advantage. Sometimes poetry for the sake of poetry is good, but that doesn't mean it necessarily solves violence or racism because you read it…
 * 4) **Counterplans:** This one's really simple. You should have some form of competition. You should solve some/all of the aff. If you don't do these things, I don't know why you're running it. I don't care either way about most CP theory, so run whatever you want.
 * 5) **Theory:** Can be really interesting. Usually isn't. "Vagueness kills debate!" isn't an argument. You know that. I know that. Shame on you.
 * 6) **A Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Debate Strategy:** If you're the kind of team that likes to run 7 off in the 1nc, please be ready to defend multiple conditional frameworks. Running T, politics, a consult CP and the Heidegger K isn't a smart strategy if you can't tell me why turning yourself a thousand times over would be a good idea. Affs – if you can explain why you link to the K less than the neg does, and that outweighs the impacts of the DA, you might win.
 * 7) **Be nice or funny:** Nothing kills debate faster for me than four people yelling at each other for no reason whatsoever. I can't understand any of you when you all shout, and probably won't try to. Likewise, if you're going to be rude, at least be humorous about it.
 * 8) **Be clear.** Okay, it's really cool that you think you can speak 400 words per minute. Some of you might actually be able to speak that quickly. If you're clear, I can flow it easily, speed is not an issue for me. But if you aren't clear, I'm going to give you sad eyes, tell you to fix it a couple of times, and then give up on me being very fond of you.