Tarsney,+Catherine

I debated for six years for St Louis Park High School in Minnesota and travelled extensively on the national circuit. I’m now an assistant coach at The Hockaday School in Texas.

I’m comfortable with speed, although it shouldn’t come at the cost of clarity and should actually serve a purpose (e.g. you shouldn’t blaze through a speech and then sit down with lots of time left). I’m willing to vote on basically anything as long it’s clearly explained and impacted. That means that link stories for any argument need to be comprehensively explained and I need to understand your full argument (when it’s read initially, not just by the last speech) in order to feel comfortable voting on it. This means that things like dense meta-ethical frameworks should probably not be read at top speed. I haven’t read most of the literature that generally warrants these frameworks, and I don’t think I should have to have that background knowledge to evaluate the arguments a case is making. Often it seems like author names and buzzwords are assumed to sub in for complete arguments that everyone is expected to understand; the link story needs to be entirely explained within the position for it to matter.

I’d prefer to see substantive argument interaction and comparison than a lot of preclusive, disconnected positions or lots of under-warranted or non-responsive blips. Similarly, by the end of the round you should be presenting a clear decision calculus and explaining the ballot story rather than just debating arguments in isolation.


 * Critical arguments:** I have no objection to voting on critical positions, but, again, I won’t vote on arguments I don’t understand, and since I don’t have much knowledge of continental philosophy, etc. this means you need to be explaining these arguments and their functions very clearly.


 * Theory:** Absent arguments by either debater, I’ll evaluate theory as a question of reasonability. I think theory should be a check on abuse rather than a strategic tool; while I’ll vote on theory if it’s won, running theory when there’s no real, clear abuse will hurt your speaker points. //I will not vote on disclosure theory.// **Offensive Counter-Interpretations:** If theory is a question of competing interpretations, I think a counter-interpretation that proposes an alternative norm/rule for debate along with a violation is a reason to vote even without an RVI. If a particular type of argument is good for fairness or education, it shouldn’t be hard to explain why excluding that type of argument (by running theory) is bad for fairness or education. For instance, if a theory shell says “affirmatives must defend the topic as a general statement,” an offensive counter-interpretations would say something like “debaters must not exclude parametricized positions/plans,” with the violation coming from the act of running the original theory shell. If theory is supposed to punish debaters for justifying bad norms, justifying the exclusion of something that is good for debate is bad and should be punished. The standards in the counter-shell obviously need to be offensive, but if, for instance, plans provide necessary ground, that’s an offensive reason why the exclusion of plans is bad. This applies under a reasonability framework as well if there is a counter-shell being explained as creating sufficient abuse to justify the ballot. If this is confusing/you have any questions, feel free to ask before the round.


 * Speaker points:** In general, your speaks will reflect your overall strategy in the round. That means not just having a lot of good arguments, but having a clear structure to how arguments on different levels of the flow function relative to one another, combined with a clear story of how you’re winning at least the most important level(s). It’s more impressive if you’re clearly winning a single argument and explaining why it matters more than anything else than if you’re winning a few different things scattered around the flow that aren’t clearly layered and may or may not function before offense your opponent is winning. Your speaks will also be affected by your overall behavior/demeanor in round. Being assertive or dominant is good and fun to watch; being a jerk, being unnecessarily aggressive, or just generally being rude towards your opponent (particularly if you’re clearly winning anyways) is not impressive and your speaks will be hurt.