Strong,+Margaret


 * I just updated this on 11/19/15. I haven't looked at it in years. I still stand by it, mostly got rid of the really bad typos (not all. there are too many)/clarified.**


 * Me:**


 * I went to Homewood-Flossmoor high school for 4(2008-2012) years**
 * 1 year of college debate at the University of Kentucky (2012-2013) **
 * Currently debating at Michigan State University (2013-2016) **


 * FYI- I worked for 7 weeks this summer, but since have only been doing college debate. I probably don’t know all the acronyms and minute details that you do on topic innovation. I cut politics for high school, so I know a lot about that. I also just read the new so I know about surveillance policy. If you are one of those teams who just took last years college topic and tried to turn that into an aff, I will really know a lot about it.**


 * Topicality:**


 * I don’t “lean” affirmative or negative in general, but I think if an interpretation is well thought out, or the affirmative is blatantly not within the topic, I will probably vote negative. If the interpretation is clearly contrived (and/or means and) I will probably vote affirmative. That being said, whoever debates the best will win. I find myself persuaded most by predictable ground and research innovation arguments. I find reasonability to be a supplement to other affirmative arguments and not something that is insular from the rest of the topicality argument. *Rowland sucks. it assumes a crappy topic and doesn’t assume internet…what in the world is neg-phobia?**


 * Framework/Critical Affirmatives:**


 * I’m fine to hear an argument about being related to the resolution being enough, but you have to really prove why your affirmative is topical and/or that your counter-interpretation creates a good vision for the topic. Given that this year topic is about getting rid of government policies, I generally think that the negative is right when they go for framework, so you really have to be positive you can beat the other team on framework if I am judging. Kritiks of topicality are good boosters to other arguments you are going for, but generally not stand alone issues in my mind.**


 * Critiques:**


 * Please Don’t read pre-written link modules about “hegemony” explain why the affirmative links to your argument. If you want to get post-modern, I will probably get confused unless you explain it. *side-note: fiat doesn’t exist isn’t an argument. we all realize that when we walk out the plan won’t happen. Take it a step further and explain why discussing the effects of the plan therefore shouldn't come first. The aff needs a reason why policy simulation is good to beat this, but the neg also has to make a reason why policy simulation is bad. In round discourse arguments should be actually articulated.**


 * Counterplans:**


 * Counterplans should be competitive (Seemingly obvious statement, but I think you get what I mean. If you have to read definitions of the word “should” to prove your counterplan is competitive, you better make sure you spend enough time on theory.) In general I think agent counterplans aren’t best for debate, but I can be persuaded otherwise. I also think that Executive Self Restrain makes sense on this topic because of the specific resolution. The best way to win that you have a competitive counterplan when I am judging is to have a solvency advocate, especially if it’s a 1ac card. *NATO likes X is not a solvency advocate…**


 * Other theory arguments:**


 * These debates often get jumbled because people think they don’t have to be clear or flow them. Most things are reasons to reject the team unless the 2nr goes for them or it otherwise impacts the debate. Exceptions are conditionality and when the negative drops the argument. Or if the aff is just winning. More and more I find that the aff can win a theory debate easily, because the neg is just really bad at it. This doesn't mean I want to hear a bad theory debate.**


 * Disadvantages:**


 * I waffle on the whole offense/defense issue. If the negative has a counterplan that solves //literally// 100% of the aff, it's hard to win terminal defense (One exception I can think of is if the counterplan links to the net benefit with some serious framing). Usually that isnt the case. weighing the risk of the 1ac/solvency deficit to the counterplan mixed with defense is one of the best strategies in my mind, because the internal links are generally the DAs biggest problems.**


 * Flowing:**


 * Please do it. It will affect your speaker points.**


 * Prep:**


 * Don’t steal it. It will affect your speaker points. Not taken for jumping, unless it ridiculous. Prep time is taken, if you ask things like “can you jump the speech with the cards you didn’t read taken out” the team that added cards needs to take prep, but only in egregiousinstances. 1 extra card isnt a big deal to me.**


 * Ethics:**


 * This is really important to me. Debate is an activity built upon trust. When that trust is broken, debate stops being fun. Card clipping/cross-reading is unacceptable and so is not marking them. MARK CARDS DURING YOUR SPEECH. If you mark after, it is mandatory to take prep and you will lose speaker points. If you are caught “cheating,” I will give you the lowest points possible and you will lose. If you think a team has been clipping cards or otherwise cheating, we will stop the round and come to an agreement on what to do from there.**


 * Random:**


 * I don’t think cards are the end all be all of debate. There are times when cards are more important, and times when analytic arguments are more important. Don’t just extend cards without explaining them and expect me to read them. It’s rude.**

I have no clue what's going on here. Inflation is real. Here is my general metric: x<27: You have personally offended the debaters/me and/or are horrible at speeding up the dead time of a debate. 27<x<28: You had some errors. You are trying but there is some need for improvement 28: You aight. 28<x<29: Good stuff is happening. Still some mistakes, but good job. 29: I'm surprised. 29<x<30: Am I sure this kid is in high school? 30: not happening.
 * Speaker Points:**

Basically, you are getting somewhere between a 27 and 29. Sorry if that is ruining things for you.