Harduvel,+Joyce

Joyce Harduvel Kenwood Academy coach Debated for four years on the national circuit for UC Lab I do my best to be a blank slate when judging. I am open to any argument as long as it is debated well. That being said, here are my views on various issues that may come up. Performance Affs: These are fine with me but I think that framework is an uphill battle for affs that do not affirm the resolution or do not have a stable advocacy statement. I believe in switch-side debate and so you will have to explain either why it is bad or why your position is not neg ground. Topicality and Theory: I see topicality and theory as gateway issues and enjoy these debates so long as they include clash, comparative analysis, and impacts just like any other part of the debate. I will default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise. If you are going to go for topicality or theory, it needs to get ample time in your speeches or I will not have enough to vote on. Kritiks: The K was probably my favorite argument to go for as a debater but that does not mean that I am predisposed to voting for the K or that I am not equally comfortable judging policy arguments. I prefer when debaters are specific on the link and alternative debates, and when they go for arguments like the K turns case or is a DA to case instead of vague impacts. I also believe that the K should have a stable alternative. Counterplans: I particularly like aff-specific counterplans. Generic counterplans are fine but I am sympathetic to aff theory arguments against PICs, consult CPs, and process CPs. On the permutation debate, I tend to lean neg and assume a risk of a link to the net benefit (unless I am told otherwise, of course). Disadvantages: Nothing really noteworthy to add here. I like DA debates particularly when they are structured, well-impacted, clash-heavy, and explained in detail. Dropped Arguments: I will presume that any drop arguments are true if you make that claim. However, I will not vote for undeveloped arguments even if they are dropped. For example, if the neg drops "conditionality is a voter--kills fairness and education," you will need to expand on that significantly in later speeches for me to vote on it. Speaker Points: I reward line-by-line, comparative impact calculus, clash, creative argumentation, explanation of warrants, and smart analytics. I will deduct speaker points for offensive language, rudeness, being purposefully evasive in cross-ex, excessive interruptions of your partner, and ethical violations. Clipping cards or refusing to provide the other team with access to your cards are serious violations, and I will deduct speaker points accordingly whether the other team points these issues out or not. Decisions: I would really rather decide the debate without reading evidence unless it is one of the few instances when reading evidence seems actually necessary (for example, comparing two definitions on T). In your final speeches, you should be explaining the big picture, isolating the key question(s) of the debate, and impacting your arguments. That makes my decision easier, makes me happier, and also makes me more likely to defer to your framing of the debate. I will provide as much feedback as I can given the restraints of tournament rules about the debate as a whole, the individual speeches, and specific arguments that came up (or should have). I always welcome questions!