Dunn,+Holly

First off, I will give you my creds:

I debated for 4 years at Ridgeview High School in Bakersfield CA. I primarily did LD, both TOC style, and our leagues more oratorical style. My senior year I was 7th in the SVFL league, and I pretty regularly broke at the few TOC tournaments we did wind up going to. However, I did all events, PF, Parli, Policy, Congress, and IEs.

I currently debate for Sacramento City College (Los Rios) and I do CEDA/NDT style debate, which is more commonly known as policy debate.


 * Some random information you may or may not want to use:**

I am incredibly liberal. This isn’t to say that if you aren’t arguing in my political affiliation that Im going to be grumpy and drop you. Regardless of what you say, it won’t affect my ballot. I am incredibly open-minded; I just won’t be fond of any arguments that are blatantly hateful.

I hate sports. Do not compare issues or anything in a round to sports. Good chance is that I either won’t get it, or it will just be annoying.

I like all kinds of music, I might very well play music before the round (if you all don’t) to keep the atmosphere a good one to debate in.

I’m a Speech & Rhetoric and Political Science major. I’m not fond of math, like at all. I get it, just do not like it. I like pretty much all other subjects though, so don’t be fooled to think I’m math/science dumb.

I would consider myself a musician. I’ve played the violin for 9 years, I’ve been signing since I was like 5, and I’m trying to pick up the piano.

I love to laugh. If you are a funny person, crack jokes in your speech. You do this event because it’s fun, right? Let loose a little; don’t be so uptight about everything. And if you aren’t a funny person, chances are I will still find your humor funny. :)

I consider myself a moderate debater. Imagine this in the sense of the political spectrum: far right is straight up, and far left is totally performance/critical. I find myself somewhere in the middle; moderate. I do engage in both critical and straight up debate; I vote on all arguments, so everything is fair game to me.


 * Now for the stuff you’re actually interested in:**

When evaluating a round, I will not use any sort of bias, and I try to be as //Tabula Rasa, Ceteris Paribus// etc, as I possibly can. But, I’m not going to say that I don’t prefer certain arguments over another. And when Im either forced to intervene, or fall back, what I will list below is what I fall back onto.


 * Speed:** I’m definitely not your fastest debater, but I am by far NOT your slowest either. I would say on a scale of 1 to 10, I’m about a 7. I can flow just about anything, at this point. So, generally speaking, I can handle your speed just fine. What I ask, however, is that NO MATTER WHAT you slow down for tags and authors. This way, even if you are unclear or too fast in the actually warrant, I have an author and tag to fall back on. I can always call for ev to check the warrants, but if I miss an author that you want extended, that will only hurt you. If you are unclear, I will yell clear. If you are too soft, I will yell loud. If you are too fast, I will yell slow. Don’t be alarmed, I am incredibly loud, and might sound angry. I’m not. I just want to be able to get it all. I might ask you to read me a sample card, so I can tell you if you’re speed is fine or not. Just depends.


 * Courtesy:** Learn to inhabit this word. You have not earned the right to overdo the bitch/dick, so don’t do it. I don’t care if you are a debate prodigy, and the entire league worships you. DON’T.


 * Voters:** Tell me how to evaluate the round. That’s all I ask. However you tell me to, I will. Unless your opponent wins that their way to evaluate the round is better.

Okay, now for the specific args.

=**LD:**= First of all, I will always request that you ask your opponent if they’re okay with speed before the round, if you want to go fast. I can deal with competing styles, but I hate to see a more experienced debater purposely spread out a less experienced debater. Secondly, I’m cool with either style of debate, TOC or straight up/traditional. If there are competing styles, I just request that you are both courteous, and give me reasons as to why I should prefer your arguments over you opponents. Just because I do policy doesn’t mean that I will vote for TOC styles more often, and just because I did LD in high school doesn’t mean that I will vote for a more philosophical style.


 * Values/Value Criterions:** A criterion functions 2 ways for me: It’s either a measuring tool for your value, or it’s a real-life example of your value taking place. I prefer more of a focus on the criterion in the V/VC debate, personally. I have a semi-personal vendetta against the value of morality, just fyi. I’m not terribly fond of it; I see it as circular. The purpose of a criterion is to show me what is moral, and the point of a value is what IS moral, if that connection makes sense. A value of morality is like saying, what is moral, is moral. It’s too circular for my taste, so as much as I hate to take personal preferences into a round, I am not too fond of this value. I will try to put my bias aside as much as possible, of course, and if you win the round, you win the round; crappy value or not.


 * Contentions:** Please warrant them. I want a clear connection within your arguments, and I want to see how the philosophies you discuss both have an applicability and a function in the real world. I want to see a clear link story as well. Warrant to me how you get from point A to point D. ( A à B à C à D)

=**Policy:**=


 * Topicality:** I think that T is a very good arsenal for negative teams to use to check abuse against the Aff, but unless you plan on going for T in the 2NR, I would consider skipping it. As a time suck, I’m not fond of it. It wastes my paper; it kills good 2AC ground, etc. If the 2AC makes those arguments and continues them into the 2AR even though you’ve kicked T, I stand a strong stance of pulling the trigger on that argument alone. That isn’t to say don’t run it, of course. If you do, I want a clear interp (AND counter interp from the aff), and warranted standards. I don’t just want blips of a T shell on my flow; explain to me the abuse clearly.


 * Theory:** I tend to believe that conditionality is fair, but I hate to see it overused; when the neg will read like 20 off, kill the poor 2AC, and then kick out of half of it, then kill the poor 1AR, then only go for one argument. I think a good strategy is necessary, but don’t abuse it. Of course, these are arguments YOU should be making, as well as many many others. I would much rather prefer to flow like 5 warranted claims and legitimate concerns, than to flow a zillion blips. But I do take theory into consideration before I vote on all other issues, because I am a firm believer that what happens in the round and the rules of debate are a prereq to all other issues.


 * Framework:** I love framework in moderation. Please don’t spend more than 3 minutes on it. It’s a good tool to battle speed, unfair Ks, unfair affs, and a multitude of other arguments. Talk to me about how to evaluate the round, what ground is good, how I should view your args, etc. I say talk to me in the sense that I don’t want blips of arguments; warrants all of your arguments, and make sure they are developed. Same idea behind theory as well: I think f/w is a prereq, and I will use whatever framework wins to evaluate the ballot. If you lose framework, it will never cost you the ballot.


 * CPs:** Explain to me the world of the counterplan. I don’t like CPs that are incredibly abusive. Explain to me WHY the perm won’t/will work.


 * DAs:** I don’t really have any special requests for DAs. Weigh the world of the DA against the squo, and clearly explain to me the link story. Explain to me the probability of your impacts actually happening.


 * Ks:** I wouldn’t consider myself a total K debater, as I’m sure you know, but I do love to hear them. As a general rule of thumb, as much as I enjoy critical debates in which we can examine the root cause of many of societal problems, and break free from discrimination and tons of other stuff; you MUST have a pragmatic alt. I want see how it can practically be applied in the world we currently exist in. And even still, even though K’s can function without an alt, please have one at that. Oh, and establish a framework, first. How does your criticism function in a debate where we are debating policies? Tell me that. And when answering Ks, explain to me the world of the perm; how the perm functions relative to the K and relative to your plan. As a side note, I will not fill in with my knowledge of critical literature either. If you don’t know it, don’t run it.


 * Impact Calc:** Start making it in the 2AC/2NC. It give you as debaters a better place to where you can start extending the impacts into the 2N/2A. It allows me to weigh the round more holistically. Firstly, you need to warrant your impacts, and more importantly, compare them to your opponents. Show me how either yours are more important, or yours outweighs. Secondly, give me an explanation of the magnitude-probability-timeframe of your impacts, and talk to me about how they interact with your arguments, as well as your opponents.


 * Off-Case v. On-Case:** You should talk about case in the 1NC. You don’t have to hit every single advantage, but at least spend a good minute to 2 minutes talking about case. If you don’t, you risk me voting on theory arguments; in which the 1AR will argue that although it was a constructive, you force the 1AR to answer all the case args out of the block. At the same time, you need a good neg strat for me to weigh against the aff. Just balance it, please.


 * Performance/Narratives/Advocacy Statements:** I won’t vote against them, but the make me really uncomfortable, really fast. Narratives are a little less awkward, just don’t expect me to buy that you gander solvency off of them. Advocacy statements, not fond of either. Why don’t you just have a critical aff and make your advocacy statement the role of the ballot? That is significantly less annoying. I really prefer a plan text. To be honest, I would compare this to mental masturbation: Its stimulating intellectually, but I don’t feel like I have anything left after its done. Give me something to work with.


 * Cursing:** Can be used; just don’t overdo it, please. I don’t want to hear an expletive every other word, or even in every other phrase.


 * Accommodations:** If you want to debate sitting down, or barefoot, or whatever, I’m chill.