Tobey,+Amanda

My name is Amanda Tobey. I debated for J.P. Taravella High School, for UCF and George Washington. If you are reading this I am probably coaching/judging for GDS. Use this as a guideline for what to run in front of me, and the end of the day most debaters will do what they do best anyway so just do it well and I’ll vote off of what you tell me to.

I am now retired. I recently taught middle school policy and public forum for GDS, but as they are novices with no circuit to compete in, I am not that caught up on literature for any current topics. You have been warned* If you have questions for me: Amandathetobey (at) gmail (dot) com.

= = = PFD THINGS = At the heart of things, I am a Policy debater who is very comfortable with PFD as I have taught and competed in it a bit. I value tech over truth.


 * You need warrants
 * You need links and internal links
 * You need impacts
 * If you are extending something you need all of the above
 * weigh stuff/impact analysis

= Policy Things = After judging a few debates on the 2015-2016 topic these are things I've been saying after every round: 1. Perm texts should be specific 2. SHORT o/v's in rebuttals are your friend (and mine) 3. Organization counts 4. Impact out f/w, T, and theory if you want me to vote on it.

**__Short but not so sweet:__**
Love: theory, T, topic specific (IR) disads, and high theory/regular k’s. Like: case, adv cps, pics. Tolerate: politics, identity-based args (ask me about this if unclear) Hate: any spec arg (you will lose speaks), card clipping (potential loss if proven)

__**Theory(Framework):**__
I love theory, I think learning about why we debate the way we debate is important. I was both a cheating 2N and a lying 2A so you do you. I think theory is fluid and changes round to round. I default to competing interps. I like to hear the history of the arguments (i.e. condo and how in the 70’s one off was abuse but in 2002 seven off was the norm) this is important to understand why my ballot matters in these rounds. Please highlight things in these debates that I should focus on (i.e. examples of non-abuse, examples of in round abuse) and/or try not to make these debates messy. RVI’s are almost always shitty. **//DO NOT RUN SPEC ARGUMENTS IN FRONT OF ME//**- even if you win on something else your speaks will go down for it. Front-lining is your friend. I default aff framing for framework and this may or may not be a pre-req to theory or T- please keep at least part of these debate alive in the last rebuttals because this is an important questions that should be resolved by the debaters. (look to counterplans for exceptions)

__**Topicality:**__
As with theory, topicality is awesome. I used to run really abusive affs and I loved slamming affs for being abusive. I have a medium threshold for voting on extra-t/effects-t, just spend time on it. I’m slightly more truth oriented on T than theory but I still rely heavily on my flow. **//Affs should have a plan txt//** that is enacted by the USFG- I am more amiable to wacky plan txts than straight up plan advocacies. Whether that plan txt has to be fiated…..is debatable. I default to competing interpretations and I am very impressed with teams that keep T debates clean.

__**Case:**__
If you need another sheet of paper for something like an overview- tell me please. I love card analysis more than new cards. Smart arguments are good arguments, and I will evaluate smart analytics against bad cards. Be clear in overviews, this is your aff, you know it better, don’t forget that. I’m also fine with squirrely things like not going for your aff, case arguments used in theory debates, ect.

__**CP:**__
Counterplans are counterplans.if you want me to judge kick you have to tell me and then justify it depending on the theory in the round. I am slightly against multiple plank counterplans and think theory can check back. That along with 50 states and Lopez, I think theory has a good place and I slightly favor an aff ballot. All other counterplans are completely tab and fair game. Please don’t rattle off perms like it’s your job, they should be separate; they should have specific texts with cards if you want to make me super happy. That being said, I sometimes lean pro aff on most all perm theory (except severance).

__**Disads:**__
Oy. So I i used to be pretty meh on politics disads. Now, I am a lot more open. I really love a good topic disad. That being said, I will totally vote for any disad, you just must: 1. Keep the debate clean 2. Spend time on it and the entire story 3. Write my rfd. Not one sentence (They dropped the link debate). I mean tell me the impact of that and how that means the 2ar is screwed and has been since the 2ac. I know cutting hyper-specific link cards is a pain, but it goes a long way.

__**Kritik:**__
My small amount of time in college made me more disillusioned with the K but I am getting over it. I am most familiar with security, cap, GBTL, and Nietzsch. I have no issues voting for k's. Including high theory stuff. **//Performance://** I think debate is an academic space and a unique one. Only in this space do academics spread ideas, talk about foreign policy, flow, fiat stuff, ect. I think we can talk about x’s rights anywhere to anyone, but policy prescriptions are unique to this space. Thus, I do not like things that take away from the precious time and space that is policy debate. You should justify how it’s policy prescription or relates to it. General performance and identity don’t meet that standard and I will be very likely to (but not definitely) vote on framework in these rounds. (Edit: given our current political climate, I can see this being more "policy" and I am more open)

**//Exceptions://** If someone is racist/sexist in a round, you have impacts that are fiated, or if you are responding to a team that is performance with “but you don’t include me”

__**Cheating:**__
I encourage you to record rounds, if someone is clipping cards or cheating in any other way, I will punish them. Bring it up during the round. Make a theory arg.

__**Tech:**__
Jumping isn’t prep, all teams must have access to all evidence. I will allow 2 minutes per team per computer malfunction, after that it’s prep. I keep prep, you keep prep, we all keep prep! You may have to remind me of high school times. Act like you know how to work your computer/stand/space even if you don’t. I may have my computer out in rounds. I will not record anything without your permission and will give you my FULL attention during all cx’s and speeches.

__**Speaks and other important things you should know (and speaks):**__
My name is Amanda, this is policy debate, please don’t call me Mrs. Tobey or “judge”. Be friendly, act like you've known your opponent your whole life. I like a “cool” style of debate. That being said I was also very passive-aggressive and sarcastic which is fine by me, but should you get too aggressive and make me uncomfortable, speaks will go down. If you want warning for anything tell me- I think it’s noble to know what you need to work on and would love to help but after one warning, if it is something that is bugging me, it will affect speaks. I view speaks as 75% how you say something (clarity, ect.) and the structure you say it with (2ac’s shouldn’t put T at the bottom) and 25% actual smart arguments (that impact turn was a good idea). __**Partnering**__- I very much value my partner and I expect you to, too. I’m fine with open cross but do not cut your partner off if it’s their cross, do not over tool your partner, do not be a dick to your partner please. Finally, if you ask me something that I already put here (not including clarification) I will be annoyed which is not a good way to start the round. I took the time to write this so you have the best chance of adapting, take the time to read it. If you show me good flows after the round (like as soon as the 2ar ends) I will add .2 to speaks.

So I basically stole this form Shree Awsare- I think it's a good representation of speaks. < 25: You were offensive or obnoxious and deserve this. 25: No arguments past constructives, no spreading or bad spreading, no strategic thought of usage of the aff/neg constructive. 26: You showed up and made some claims (mostly without warrants) that occasionally clashed with your opponents- bad ethos and bad spreading. 27: You made a variety of claims in the debate (some backed up with warrants) but had a variety of severe strategic mishaps and/or failed to impact your claims- badish ethos, okay spreading. 28: You made a variety of claims in the debate (most of them backed up with warrants), but you were occasionally playing with fire and had questionable strategic maneuvers. okay ethos, good spreading. 28.5: You are solid. Your claims are backed up with warrants and you have a strategic vision that you are attempting to accomplish. Solid spreading, okay ethos. You use examples and don't just read pre-written blocks, you contextualize. 29+: You've done everything needed for a 28.5, but you sounded really, really good while you were doing it. This probably includes: you had excellent ethos/pathos, you were incredibly clear, and your strategic vision was executed nearly flawlessly. 30- You did all of the above and you made a connection. Somewhere in the debate (or at multiple points) you looked at me and made a topical one-liner or said something that changed the way I viewed the debate.