Tippets,+Misty

Debated 4 years at Bingham High School Currently an assistant coach at Bingham High School Currently a sophomore debating at Weber State University Rounds on the Topic 15+
 * Misty Tippets**


 * Over all philosophy**
 * Debate is a **game** - I’m not going to tell you what you can and can’t run, I will try to be as open to anything as possible, so have fun and read what you like, just make sure you are explaining it well.
 * I prefer explanation of your arguments over just reading cards/blocks at me
 * Always be nice in debates, there is no reason to harass your opponents. That being said I do enjoy an aggressive debate
 * Ethos is always persuasive and will be rewarded with speaker points
 * If it isn’t in the 1AR or 2NC/1NR I will do my best not to evaluate it
 * The phrase "mark the card here" is __not__ a substitute for actually marking the card
 * I will try to keep track of where you mark your cards, but you should have a copy as well
 * Prep **ends** when the flash drive is out of the computer.
 * stealing prep will result in a loss of speaker points and an annoyed judge
 * Don’t use sexist, racist, or ableist language
 * If you are going to record a debate/speech you must get permission from the other debaters being recorded.
 * I have a terrible poker face - you will almost always be able to tell how I feel about an argument by my face.


 * Specific things**

Theory – I have a high threshold for what constitutes a good theory argument. Arguments like “No Neg Fiat” and “Dispo Bad” will not have any weight in front of me. A very specific Multiple Conditional Worlds or Pics Bad argument will go very far. "Reject the argument, not the team" is usually enough for me not to vote on a theory argument besides conditionality. I generally think conditionality is a good thing, but that doesn't mean you can't convince me otherwise. The more specific the violation is to the negative strategy the more likely I will agree that there was abuse. If you read your theory block at 100% speed I will probably not flow it and be annoyed. In round abuse scenarios are preferred, but I will vote on potential abuse.

Topicality – I enjoy well explained and in depth topicality debates, but often feel this is lacking. I'm not a huge fan of generic "substantial" interpretations. I prefer you have a very specific interpretation and violation with the intent to define. I default to competing interpretations, but a good explanation of reasonability can change my mind. In round abuse has a lot more weight than potential abuse. Buzz words like “limits” “fairness” “predictability” aren't impacts, but rather internal links. If T is the 2NR I would prefer portable impacts.

Disadvantages – Specific case arguments and a well-written disadvantage is probably my favorite kind of debate to watch. A specific disadvantage with up to date uniqueness and relevant links to the Aff will go a long way with me. Generic disads like “Spending” aren't as interesting, but always willing to vote on them if the link and impact are clear. I love a good politics debate; this includes evidence comparison and impact interaction. On any Disadvantage you need to have a clear scenario of how you get to your impact, especially extinction impacts. Just because you say "extinction" doesn't mean it is going to happen, prove why it matters or should be something I evaluate.

Counterplans – I will vote on any CP if it has a clear net benefit and solves majority of the affirmative. That being said Conditional CPs, Consult CPs, or Generic PICs aren’t very compelling to me, the more specific the solvency advocate is to the aff the more weight I will give it against solvency deficits.Reading through the CP text at full speed probably means I won’t know what the CP does and you will start behind in that debate. I will not kick the counterplan for you if it doesn't solve.

Kritiks - This seems to be the type of debate I participate in more as my debate career continues. I have participated in all types of these debates, from high theory to identity debates. You should feel comfortable to read whatever you want and have me be able to understand it. I think this type of debate is strategic and i'm eager to listen/vote on different kritiks. All I ask is that you make sure you explain it well and make the link/impact very clear. There should be a clear role of the ballot or role of the judge articulated by both teams. If you are reading a K aff I prefer you actually relate to the topic, but there are many different interpretations as to what that can mean. Also, that doesn't mean I wont vote for you if you don't. To get my ballot with a non-traditional aff you just have to justify why your discussion is a better one for us to have than talking about the resolution. Also, I find impact turns to most arguments a strategic decision that most teams don't take advantage of.

Ethic Challenges - I would almost always prefer that this is not what a debate comes down too and that we can have a discussion about the topic instead, but I understand the necessity of it in certain situations. When it comes to the question of "clipping cards" to win the ethic challenge you will need a recording of the speech that is in question. I will listen to the recording and if it is __very__ apparent that the debater in question is skipping multiple words/lines that would make it an advantage for them then I will rule in your favor of the ethic challenge. That being said, I think the accusation of "clipping cards" is a serious one that you should not accuse people of unless you are 100% sure that it is happening and causing an unfair advantage for you in that debate. Accusing someone a cheater is a very serious one that you should not take lightly.

Have fun and f eel free to ask me any questions if I didn't cover something!