Woodhouse,+Allie

I did LD for 4 years on the TFA and TOC circuits. My name is sometimes listed as Alexandra Woodhouse on prefs. Winston Churchill HS '13 Northwestern University '17

====**Update for Glenbrooks 2016:** I haven't judged a round or paid attention to debate for the last 19 months, so if norms have substantially changed since then (lol), I wouldn't know. My paradigm still applies, I guess...====

**Update for NDCA 2015:** If you can teach me something interesting about a topic that is relevant to the world outside of debate, I will increase your speaks by 0.5.

 * General: ** I’m open to listening to and voting for any argument, as long as it’s well warranted and implicated in terms of its relevance to my ballot. However, there are certain arguments I’ll only begrudgingly vote for, if they’re won (see the speaker points section on things you can run that will cause me to dock your speaks). Moreover, if you don't include warrants in your extensions and you fail to weigh between competing arguments, you will probably lose. Also, I have a few defaults, but any of them can be changed if an argument is made and won in the round:
 * Paradigm: Comparative worlds, not truth testing
 * Theory: Drop the argument, not the debater, and competing interps, not reasonability


 * Philosophy/ framework: ** Don’t be shifty in explaining what links to your framework in CX. I’m fine with complicated philosophical frameworks, just explain them really well if they’re super dense. TBH, I really don't enjoy debates that are dominated by normative framework discussions, but whatever.


 * Policy arguments: ** I like these a lot. Please run them in front of me, if you know how! I understand the function of pretty much everything. Extinction scenarios are fine, but I also enjoy hearing lower magnitude, high probability impacts as well. For instance, on the health care topic, I liked real world impacts about preventative care saving lives and health care reducing the incidence of poverty.


 * Critical arguments: ** I enjoy the more real-world applicable critical arguments about subjects like racism, classism, sexism, homophobia, etc. that are proliferating in LD right now, but I really dislike dense, vague, and abstract kritiks with cards from policy backfiles by authors like D&G, Zizek, etc. strung together incoherently. If you're taking the latter approach, explain it thoroughly because I don’t read critical literature for fun, so I’m not well versed in it. I won’t vote for arguments that I don’t understand.


 * Micropolitical arguments: ** I’m fine with them, just make sure you have a well-developed role of the ballot section or else I’ll default to determining the winner based on which side of the resolution is more normatively desirable. I’m sympathetic to “wrong forum” arguments against micropol positions, though.

I like nuanced theory voters that go beyond the traditional fairness/education debate. They make theory debates a little livelier. I am //very// predisposed towards thinking that the aff should have RVIs (as long as they win offensive reasons why their position is better for debate) and that fairness and education are voters (i.e. don't read that classic Texas block about why fairness isn't a voter). I like interesting, carded topicality debates.
 * Theory: ** I can flow and understand intricate theory debates, so go for it as long as your opponent is actually being abusive and you’re not just running it because you’re a better theory debater and it’s strategic. I can tell the difference, and so can you. For example, legitimate theory in my eyes: advocacy severance bad. Illegitimate theory in my eyes: font must be 12-point, but the aff’s font is 11-point.


 * Weighing: ** This is by far the most important thing you can do to win my ballot. No matter what style of argumentation you employ, weigh your arguments against your opponents. If there are 2 competing theory shells, weigh between theory standards. If there are 2 competing statistical cards, do evidence comparison between study methodologies, and so forth.


 * Speed: ** Go as fast as you’d like, I can flow it. But pause in between card tags, author names, and cards. I’ll yell clear or slow if I can’t understand you.

30: You could win the tournament based on your performance in this round 29.5: You could get to late outrounds based on your performance in this round 29: You could break based on your performance in this round 28.5: You could get close to breaking based on your performance in this round 28: You probably won’t break based on your performance in this round 27.5: You will likely have a losing record based on your performance in this round 27: This is probably your novice year based on your performance in this round
 * Speaker points: **

Things you could do that would cause me to deduct speaker points:
 * Evade debate about the topic. This includes triggering or running presumption/skep/permissibility, reading unnecessary theory when your opponent clearly isn’t being unreasonably abusive, or running a priori blippy arguments. Also, don’t employ your paragraph theory strategies in front of me please.
 * Be unclear with your spreading or speaking style (i.e. never pausing and maintaining constant speed your entire speech, repeating the same thing over and over again, mumbling, etc.)
 * Be shady. Don’t evade questions or drink water for 30 seconds to delay answering your opponent’s CX question, don’t steal prep time, don’t miscut evidence, and don’t give your opponent your case in 6-point font. Basically, don't cheat.
 * Be blippy. I loathe blip spreads. Develop your arguments in every speech.
 * Be offensive or mean. Don’t say racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. slurs in the round, and don’t bully or mock your opponent.

Things you could do that would cause me to give you good speaks: debate and teach me about the topic/ something meaningful, warrant and weigh your arguments well, be nice, and be funny if you are funny.