Feinberg,+Amy

Sequoyah High School (GA) - '11 UGA - '15

Debate is a game and you should be enjoying it. Intensity = good, mean = bad. Mean to your partner = extra bad. It's just obnoxious. If you're like "I think my partner is the dumbest person ever and I don't care if everyone knows it" then by all means have at it. Excessive partner prompting = bad. Particularly in novice/JV debates, everyone seems to be interrupting each other allllllll the time. There are limits.

Clarity – If I can’t understand you, I’ll probably tell you. If I've told you and you've ignored me, and I don't look like I'm flowing, I'm probably not.

Counterplan/Disad debates are great. Weighing it v plan/perm = good. Net benefits with links/internal links = good. Non-competitive counterplans = bad. Plan plus or consult = maybe bad. I won't kick the counterplan (or the alt) for the 2nr unless you tell me to. Coercion = not a disad. certainly not a good one.

Topicality – I really enjoy T debates and like resolutions that help those occur more often. You should explain what ground you lose or why limits are important, etc – T should be impacted just like any other piece of paper. The aff should be doing the same in reverse, impacting overlimiting, etc and explanations for why you are reasonable and why that’s enough are normally pretty convincing. T is always a voting issue. Topical affs = good. It's the affs burden to affirm the resolution.

Theory – General thoughts: Go for theory when you need to go for theory. Definitely a reason to reject the argument, sometimes a reason to reject the team; if you just read your blocks I will be less happy than if you do things like flow. Specific Thoughts: Conditionality = probably good, unconditionality and dispo = probably bad for the neg, three condo = definitively sketchier than one and maybe bad, consult = probably bad but iFiat I'm pretty neutral.

Cheating = definitely bad. Clipping = cheating. Stealing prep = less bad. but still not good. I'll probably notice and start a timer without telling you. Just don't do it. I hate voting because people cheated. Debate doesn't have that many rules. Follow the ones it does.

Kritiks – should provide a reason that the plan or plan action are bad. Specific links = good. Failure to contextualize generic links = bad. Debating it like a policy debate = good. Philosophy you don't understand = bad. Bad k debates = terrible. Good k debates = awesome. Blocks tricks = good, dropping them = bad. The neg doesn't always have to win the alt to win the round. If the neg loses the alt, they better win a reason I should still care about the k. Probably the neg gets the k and the aff gets to weigh their impacts. I'm interested in nontraditional debates and what they have to say, but that doesn't always mean I think you should win the round. You're probably in a better spot with me if you affirm the res in some way. See "Topicality."

Jumping Speeches - I'm not going to time jumping speeches. I will time you for stealing prep.

General: if I'm not feeling your argument, or if I am, you'll probably have some sense of that. Presumption probably goes less change unless otherwise characterized in the round. There is not always a risk if you are getting crushed on the defense.

The Short Version, and some general opinions Good things: Impact Calc Impact Turns Line by Line Ev Comparison Humor Ethos

Bad Things: Cheating Being Disorganized Overviews that go on forever Illogical grouping of arguments. I flow on paper.