Sharron,+Kelly

Eden Prairie HS 09 Coach at Eden Prairie HS

Short list of my preferences:  Things I love:  -Good fem debates (<3 Butler)

 Things I like:  -CLASH  -Overviews in the context of the round with specific impact analysis  -Good framework debates with specific comparison between the two calculuses  -Case specific strategies  -Case specific K’s- or at least good link analysis to your generic K (I love generic link work on say, Nietzsche or cap)  -Role of the ballot explanations  -Arguments that force me to think about debate. I have no problem changing the traditional framework of the activity. Arguments about why the activity sucks don't bother me.

 Things I don’t like:  -Blippy theory  -Shallow T Debates  -Extreme speed through theory arguments to the point of unflowability  -Unwarranted or tagline extensions <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;"> -New 2AR's- they may sounds pretty, but I will trace arguments back to the 1ar and your new arguments won't get you anywhere. <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;"> -Debaters who are unnecessarily jerks- watch the sass. -Plan flaws- overcoming my intense bias of these is very difficult. -Args that fall into the category of "patriarchy good, racism good, genocide good"

T: I often think T devolves into tagline extensions and unwarranted theory arguments. I think T should be debated like a disad flow, meaning there should be links and impacted abuse. That being said, I'm not against T and will evaluate it based on the flow, but I do prefer an actual abuse story. I think a good T debate requires extreme technical proficiency as well as explanation. I can be persuaded by aff offense on T- not an RVI, but the realm of silencing discussion args- especially if this can be impacted in the aff case/ framework.

Theory: I'll admit that I was not a theory debater and will wince if theory is a major strategy. I evaluate it by the flow and I recognize it as a strategic last ditch option, but I find it teams who do it routinely lazy- don't expect stellar speaks. I default to rejecting the argument- so answer this sufficiently for me to change. To get me to vote on theory- there has to be an impact and framing arguments. You need to compare the two worlds of debate and provide overarching stories along with extreme technical proficiency. I recognize how difficult this is, which is why I caution you from pursuing this strategy.

K's: I am decently familiar with the critical literature and am open to all forms of critical debate (in round discourse, performance, etc.). Affirmative "A2: K's" blocks are not persuasive to me. Just as critical teams are expected to engage your politics scenario I think affirmatives carry the burden of engaging the philosophy, methodology, ethics, etc. of the K. I draw no distinction between these two forms of education. I will get annoyed if you just read "pomo bad" with no explanation or application- that is not going to get you anywhere in front of me. I think the team running a critical argument also carries the burden of explaining the links and impacts of the K as much as a politics link scenario. Putting a generic K in the context of the round and altering your overviews is extremely effective in front of me. Framework and the alternative method of solvency also needs to be justified. I think this is the crux of critical arguments and important to cover. Being that I am more familiar, I probably hold teams to a higher standard of explaining buzzwords like ontology, epistemology, etc.

CP's: I'm down with most counterplans but I am persuaded by PICs bad theory and am lenient towards 50 state fiat and international fiat theory. I also think some perms and theory arguments on consult and conditions are too damning to come back from. I hate word PICs. I don't believe these counterplans prove the aff to be a bad idea. I will of course try to be a blank slate in any debate, but I think it's important to make debaters aware of my biases. I prefer a coherent strategy with clear net benefits that you invest time in. I love case specific counterplan strategies and will reward case specific research, but I understand this is an ideal situation.

DA's: i don't think there's much to say here. I will evaluate all disadvantages. I love overviews that explain impacts and are modified for weighing against the aff. Once again, I find it compelling when impacts are contextualized within the round and it's not a pre-made block v. block war. I do appreciate theory arguments on politics- the proliferation of 30 second highly improbable politics DAs written completely by hacks bothers me. But I recognize their utility so don't hessitate to run them. I think a lot of DA evidence is BS and oversimplifies the real world to a point where smart defense can eliminate the risk of a DA.

None Traditional Affs: Generally, these are good and produce some fun debates. I am more lenient than most judges about affs being bound to this silly thing called the resolution people seem to be so concerned about. Affs can present whatever they want in the 1AC (except things listed elsewhere like patriarchy good) and I'll definitely consider it at the end of the round. So, unlike a lot of judges I will not sign my ballot neg after I hear a narrative 1AC that does not involve the topic in any way. But, obviously, the aff has to defend their move away from the topic and defend positions like T and framework. This is more to say that I am open to alternative affs and I do not think they are the end of the activity. Basically, I will evaluate them like any other aff at the end of the round and look to the flow.

Other notes: -I don't generally count flashing as prep time. -I don't read cards unless there is a dispute- if you have great evidence prove it to me through in round explanation- don't expect me to ask for it. -I will try to be as tabula rasa as possible (not that I believe that there is any way to ensure that this is ever achieved)-- that being said, make every argument in the round and don't expect me to extrapolate for you so impact your arguments. Also- essentially I want you to go for what you think you're best at. If that's politics and states or if that's rapping, fine by me. -Don't read racism, patriarchy, or genocide good- 1. these cards are complete garbage anyway that you are better off just reading defense. 2. it's just plain offensive- to me, to your opponents, and to prospective debaters. No one could get away with it in any other academic setting. -I will dock points for misogynistic behavior. I believe the activity needs enforcement to prevent its trend towards becoming an unsafe and hostile space. Keep this in mind- you will get a warning, but after that there will be negative consequences.