Garvin,+Mikayla+Rae

Mikayla Rae Garvin

Notre Dame High School Class of 2015

Feel free to email me with any questions :) - mikayla.ra3@gmail.com

So here we go:

I was basically a 2A for most of my debate career, but don't take this as any kind of bias. Like many others I have devoted a lot of time to this activity and I do see it as a community. That being said, I think it should be a safe place for everyone. Basically what you should get from that is to be respectful, don't be a jerk, and I HATE arrogance. I will penalize you with a loss of speaker points and even dropping you if it comes to that point.


 * Biggest pet peeve: stealing prep, so please don't.**


 * I see arguments as stories so explain as such. For example, tell me what happens in the world of the disad, don't throw out common lingo and expect it to get you far. I may have heard the politics DA a thousand times but that doesn't mean I want to do the work for you. Explanations are your friend. (This also doesn't mean unnecessary over/under views!)


 * General:**

You do you. This philosophy is not a rule book it is a guideline. I will try to be as impartial as possible. Being unbiased does not mean I understand everything.

- I don't want to vote on morally reprehensible arguments (patriarchy good, racism good, ect.)

- Frame the debate. It will frame my decision. If neither team frames the debate for me I am free to input my own predispositions. This may help you or hurt you, but if you framed the debate you shouldn't have to worry.

- A dropped argument is not always a true argument. If you cannot prove your dropped argument as correct you do not deserve to win/should never have read it to begin with. Extending a tag line does nothing for me.

- Flashing does not count as prep, unless it gets excessive. If your computer breaks down, let me know, it's okay it happens, we can work it out. I feel like this is a service to you and I am being nice so if I catch you stealing prep I will doc speaks and flashing will be prep for the rest of the round.


 * Specificity:**


 * Topicality/Other procedurals:**

- In my experience these types of debates tend to get messy, despite this try your best to follow the line by line.

- Not a huge fan of nit-picky topicality arguments but then again, you do you. But just fore-warning I don't see much impact to these types of arguments.

- Have good definitions. As a 2a I hate it when negs found random cards that were not even definitions and would make them T arguments. If you find a reason I should prefer your T arg because the other team's evidence sucks then it will go far with me.

- Try to make your T argument exclusive and specific to the aff.

- I am more inclined to evaluate reasonability if explained well by the aff.

- I evaluate T a lot like a DA with set impacts (education/fairness) and internal links to those impacts (limits/ground/ect.). I am not necessarily voting for the most correct legal interpretation but the one best for debate.

- I will vote on tricky procedural arguments but only if handled very poorly by the other team. I would rather not take the easy way out.


 * Disads:**

I really do not think there is much to say here. Impact framing is your friend.

Have good cards


 * Counterplans/Theory:**

- I do not discount cheating counter plans. Although I see the strategic benefit I would much prefer a specific counter plan to the aff. Be creative, counter plans are fun :). Make it competitive.

- Theory is fine. Go slow because I can't vote for something I didn't hear. 2 conditional advocacies are probably okay.


 * Critiques:**


 * Not a huge K person. My partner was a huge K debater so I understand a good amount of it so don't feel obligated to not read it in front of me, I have voted for them plenty of times.

- Not a fan of long overviews, especially if it is generic and you haven't made it specific to the aff. If you can find a place on the flow to put then do it. If you have no idea where to put something given the 2ac an overview is probably okay but if you find yourself saying "cross apply from the overview" it was probably unnecessary.

- Framework - make it specific to what the other team is saying - try not reading your generic.

- Links - make it specific - I am more inclined to side that what the aff is doing is probably a good idea if you are going super generic. Pull lines from their ev. If your strat is "they used the state" so I can read a K you are probably not in a great place without a specific link even if its just your spin.

- This is another place I don't like the lingo, if you can't explain it without it, don't run it.


 * Non-plan affs:**

- I will vote on these affs. Whoever does the better debating, whether it is the aff or the neg going for framework, will win. I am personally more policy oriented, so I prefer a plan.

- For the negative - T/Framework will get you a long way. Use specifics in your impact calc. However, If your strat is to go for a generic K do it, if its to attack the K aff head on do it. Call the aff out if they are on the line of the topic.


 * I like debate to feel like something more than spreading arguments. Be persuasive, it goes a long way I promise. :)

Good Luck Everyone!

p.s. Any 'Scandal' or 'Greys Anatomy' reference = +.5 speaker points :)