Hobeika,+Marie+Odile

Odile Hobeika – University of Pittsburgh This is my first year coaching, so I have taken the time to write a lengthy philosophy because I don’t want to surprise you about how I calculate debates. I have competitively debated 6 resolutions throughout college and high school. I debated for Wake Forest. Audience note – During your debate, fortunately or not, you will find that I have an expressive “confused” face. If I lean forward and frown and tilt my head, it would do your probability of winning good if you pause, and re-explain what is on your mind/flow. If you are unclear, I will holler “clear.” I will not say clear more than a couple of times, at which point your speaker points will tank and you will receive a comment on the ballot. These are the two main ways I communicate to you during the round. Speaker Points – I give higher speaker points based on the following: clarity, organization, strategic choices, ability to articulate arguments without evidence as well as the ability to signpost arguments/evidence by author and place on the flow, quality of cross-examinations (I flow c-x because it’s a speech) lack of tub pounding, lack of respiratory breakdowns, and general respect and care about the activity. Swearing is appropriate when you are impassioned about your argument. Racist and sexist language tanks your speaker points regardless of whether the other team makes it a voting issue. General Note to Social/Community Activists – Debate Community Activists: Effective places to change debate include the resolution meeting, e-debate, community forums during the tournament, debate conferences, debate camps, etc. I do not think individual competitive rounds are the appropriate forums for debaters who believe the debate community has sinned in a particular way. There is no doubt that the debate community needs to fix its act up on a lot of race and gender questions, but that does not give me reason to vote down another team for engaging the resolution. Social Activists: I have studied performance theory and I love it. But, know that if you choose to do this on the aff, please be able to defend your relationship to the resolution and how you are topical and if it is fair. Topicality justifications precede whether or not you are a successful social movement. Also know that I think that debate is not completely insular, but insular enough so that generally, activism does not permeate to society at large. With that said, I think that some performances do have that potential. It is your burden to persuade despite my biased. How do you solve? Case – My favorite debate is very old school. Simply put, if you spend 6 minutes in the 2NR turning and taking out case, I will vote there. If you proffer a 100% solvency take out argument, I might vote there though I will take time to read evidence to make sure the defense is an absolute takeout. If you can provide ample evidence to take out their Inherency, I will vote there too. Topicality – Please have a justification of why you are topical. Otherwise policy and critical affirmatives welcome. If you do not tell me why reasonability is better than competing interpretations, and you offer a counter interp with counter standards; then I default to a framework of competing interpretations. However, I am willing and wanting to operate in a framework of reasonability if you can explain why reasonability is good for that particular semantics game and/or that particular topic and/or for limits. Topicality v. theory, order of importance during RFD (please see theory). Theory – I expect to have a terminal impact other than “this is an in round voting issue.” Conditionality/Dispo are fine. Alternate agent, international fiat, multiple conditional counterplans – I think that there are very intelligent debates to be had there. Be technical here and slow down or my fingers will perish in the midst of flowing. If applicable, let me know if I have to look at theory before or after topicality and why. If you don’t, I will weigh them both on the same level… and that means I will have to inject my logic on which argument outweighs the other, in disad fashion. Critiques – Am I a policy judge or a critique judge? How about “Perm: I am both.” Thus far, I have not spent my time reading the following: Zizek, Lacan, and Heidegger. I’ll let you know when I am qualified to listen to that... but, if you are confident with your ability to explain that literary base in layme(n) terms for me, do it. I will probably read the evidence after the round to make sure your explanation of it matches… and then you’re golden. If aff wins framework arguments, then I can’t weigh criticism impacts against the case impacts (it has never been a reason to reject team). But the burden is on the neg to explain if and why their impacts are on a different “level.” If framework is not discussed in the round, then I will automatically weigh critical v. aff impacts. The impact level is a very important place for both teams to compare and contrast what is happening in each world, and TIMEFRAME of those things happening. If the main impact story is that “their impacts are inevitable” without engaging the fact that they say they are stopping a nuclear war with China tomorrow… I will default to a short term solvent though bad policy. Alternatives are not necessary – explaining how the criticism turns specific impact scenarios of the case is strategic too. If an alternative exists, better not be vague. If it is, affirmative would better spend their time on how this helps their well worded permutation and/or plan action; otherwise explain why I should reject a team for having a vague alternative text until you are sure there is a well structured theory argument. Disads Seriously, you will shine in cross examination if you can dismantle those disads. Same thing with advantages. Disadvantages are awesome arguments because you are blindsided, left without time to read the evidence in comparison to the tags. If you don’t point out the flaws of their disad, I will default to how they articulate the argument via tags and extrapolation. When the round sounds close, I do read evidence, though I would prefer not to. The way it is highlighted and the quality of the evidence usually takes care of who wins. With that said, you all better be reading enough of those cards so that I can make sense of an argument when I read the evidence. Counterplans Like ‘em, Love ‘em. Helps to have a solvency card. But I am going to be honest with you – too many debaters walk in a round with a counterplan shell. I reward people who read the other team’s plan and look at the solvency and minimize plan action. Neg wins cp if they are doing less than the aff … and they can base it off the aff evidence. Sometimes all it takes is being willing to take a minute of prep before the 1NC to make sure there is no evidence specific pic you can employ.