Ayers,+Kristen

I debated for Georgetown HS in Georgetown, Texas. I was coached by Terri Robinson and Cody Gray in my senior year. I debated extensively on the local and state levels. I currently attend Texas A&M University.

General stuff: 1) Paradigms: I’m not one to identify myself as being of solely one paradigm or another, but I do tend to prefer a more “comparative worlds” interpretation of debate. I expect debaters to weigh and compare the aff/neg worlds. I also expect debaters to link to a standard/burden/etc. I am open to other paradigms, but they must be justified. This does come with a caveat, however. I do not like and am not compelled to vote for debaters that attempt to make debate impossible by running a lot of burdens (one or two, please) or that try to present the resolution as a nonsensical statement. Running multiple blippy //a prioris// is just going to frustrate me. So is being told that a sequence of words that makes perfect sense is actually nonsense.

2) I was more or less a “traditional” debater in the sense that I ran a lot of “stock” positions and didn’t run things that were too far off topic or highly complex. You can run dense, complex literature, but don’t expect me to understand it if it isn’t explicitly explained and warranted. I didn’t read post-modern literature for fun, so you’re going to have to explain it. I am not dumb; if it’s explained well, I will understand it. Your job is to explain it to me. If you don’t do your job well, the round may not end favorably for you.

3) I’m reasonably comfortable with theory. That being said, don’t get crazy. I didn’t do a terrible amount of theory debate when I was on the circuit. I understand it, but I’m not terribly fond of it. I find that this is because people run theory as a time suck, which really just makes me mad. I don’t want my time sucked. I have other things to do with my life that don’t involve you running worthless theory. I also think it’s really obnoxious in the sense that you’re skirting substantive debate with a cheap, useless strategy. I don’t view all theory as useless, but please demonstrate abuse. I am compelled to vote off of theory that is justified and relevant to the round.

4) Speed: Do not go quickly. I wasn’t terribly fast and I won’t take kindly to you spreading your opponent (and thus me) out of the round. I can’t rank what speed I would like you to go because that’s rather arbitrary. If you have concerns about your speed, either go more slowly with me or let me yell “clear” at you in round. However, if you are either unclear or too fast and I have to tell you multiple times, your speaks will suffer.

5) “Policy” arguments: Ks, DAs, CPs, etc. are fine to run with me. I am familiar with all, though considerably less so with counterplans. To be on the safe side, explain everything extremely clearly about your CPs or just don’t run them. I am not compelled by arguments that are driven from a “traditional” mindset. Just because an argument came from policy debate doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be debated. “This is LD, not policy” is not a compelling argument. Arguments are arguments. Engage them. In terms of Ks, I like them. Run them if you want. However, do not run them if they don’t have an alternative.

6) In-round behavior: Don’t be mean in round. I don’t care who your opponent is or how silly you think their argument. There are tactful ways to engage arguments that you find ridiculous or dumb. Belittling your opponent makes me feel awkward and sad. If you do this, you will **definitely** see it reflected in your speaks. I do like funny debaters. Don’t give me 13 minutes of attempts at humor, but subtle, witty jokes are appreciated and will also be reflected in your speaks.

7) Questionable cases: I like hearing things that are deemed unconventional as long as I understand why they’re topical. I need solid warrants and links. If you’re not topical, I don’t get why you should win. Morally repugnant cases, no matter how topical, will not win with me. I don’t care if you are winning; you will not get my ballot. I don’t think cases such as “rape good” or “children dying good” are acceptable. If you have questions about whether or not I will find your position acceptable, either ask me outside of/before round or just don’t run it.

**Though I am a very easy-going person and judge, there are a couple of things that will result in a loss on face regardless of your opponent’s awareness of the problem:** 1. Cheating is unacceptable. Fabrication or misrepresentation of evidence **//__will__//** result in a loss. Additionally, you are expected to have the **full source cites** and they //**__are__**// expected to be available to **all parties** involved in the round. 2. Misrepresenting/making new arguments in the 2AR will also not please me. In order to win a round in front of me, your advocacy **will** tell a similar story through each of your speeches. Lying about or misrepresenting the content or function of your arguments is cheating.

If you have any other questions about things covered or uncovered here, feel free to find me. I’m actually rather approachable.