Meyer,+Jackie

Jackie Meyer Brookings High School (SD) ‘13 University of Minnesota - Twin Cities ‘16 Currently coaching for Bloomington HS

Speed/Style: I’m not going to punish you for wanting to run something that you love and are good at defending just because I don’t like it as much. Like most judges, I’ll default policymaker if I’m given no reason to vote differently. In terms of speed, I'm probably an 8 on a scale from 1-10. I'm fine with tag-team cx as long as you don't make your partner look like a tool.

Topicality: A good T debate is one of my favorite things. A good interpretation requires many possible affs; I’m won’t buy an interpretation that allows only one or two affirmatives. For T, impacts are key. Make them more specific than general fairness or limits; there needs to be a clear ground loss story, impacted limits work, and a topical version of the aff when applicable. I’ll default to competing interpretations but can easily be convinced otherwise.

Theory: Here’s where I’m probably least likely to vote. I have a really high threshold for actual proven abuse, so you’d probably be better off spending your speech time elsewhere. That being said, if they run 5 conditional counterplans, run condo bad. I’ll vote on it if you can clearly prove abuse. Same story applies here as T. Clear ground loss and impacts are going to be necessary for me to vote here.

Case: I definitely have a soft spot in my heart for traditional policy debate and case debate has always been my favorite. I need warrants from both sides here, and the more warrants, the more likely I am to buy your argument. One mistake teams make is to not read the other team’s cards. The negative should have read the aff’s case in its entirety (no, not just the underlined section) and spend time in the block pointing out flaws in their evidence. I can assure you that I will be a very happy person if there’s a good case debate from both sides.

Disads: Disad debate is great, and the more specific your story is, the more likely I am to enjoy it. I'm very open to politics as well, but a specific link needs to be there. For the neg, make sure you have a clear story in the block. For the aff, offense is key, but don’t forget to point out huge flaws in their logic and/or their cards. People generally lie about the quality of their link story. Point that out. Also, this should be obvious, but please do impact calc.

Counterplans: For theory, unless you can prove they are blatantly abusive, I’m going to be very open to hearing anything (process, topical, PICs, etc). Just be smart about it. I won’t make the theory arguments for you, so even if the CP is incredibly abusive, the aff needs to tell me that before I’ll vote on it.

Kritiks: I make no promises on having read every single theory out there, but as long as you understand your argument and can explain it, I’m fine with it. Just a few specific things on K’s: 1) I’m will be much more open to finding your K compelling if it’s unique to the aff, rather than something like cap where the aff is forced to defend not only their case but also the policies of the entire world outside the scope of the resolution. Aff, I’m very willing to buy non-unique K theory. 2) Affs, don’t forget to defend your case. You don’t have to read hundreds of link turns and impact takeouts to answer the K, just know your story very well and tell me why your impacts are important in the policymaking sphere. 3) Negs, use the aff’s evidence against them. If they read an econ advantage, don’t just pull out your econ links. Take analysis from their own cards to link them back into the K. It’s going to get you a lot further than reading 20 link cards that are probably taken out of context. 4) I really like queer/fem theory, but just know that I am a gender/women’s/ sexuality studies major, so I’ve probably read your lit, and if you are lying about your evidence, I will know. But, if you run it well, I will really enjoy the debate, so if that is your thing, go for it.

Performance: I’m very open to performance, but know that I haven’t judged tons of performance rounds, so make sure to outline your position clearly and especially the role of my ballot in the round. In response to performance, framework is fine, but the quality of the round is much higher if you actually engage in your opponent’s arguments, as opposed to reading “performance bad” and leaving it at that.

Other things: - Don’t read new in 2. New cards are fine, new extensions are fine, and if they do something incredibly offensive go ahead and pull out the K for the 2NC. But if you read two new disads or new solvency turns in the block just to press the 1AR, I will be laughing in the back of the room and you will be in an unfortunate position. - With K affs, either you read a plan or you don’t. Don’t try to be strategic by keeping the neg and the judge guessing. - Girls, don’t be afraid to be aggressive. I promise I won’t dock your speaks for trying to be as assertive or more than your male opponent. It would actually be refreshing. - If you make a good joke, I will laugh and that is good. However, don’t make it come at the expense of your opponent.

Any questions feel free to ask.