Norris,+Tara

Background: I debated for 4 years in Lincoln-Douglas debate at Rancho Bernardo High School in San Diego. (I dabbled in policy, parli, public forum, and one ill-advised Duo, but LD was my main event). I’ve been an assistant coach at Harvard-Westlake for 3 years. I also debated NPDA parli for 3 years at UCLA.

Things that are not negotiable: -Offensive language will probably get you dropped with low speaks and a strongly worded chastising after the round. Same goes for blatantly offensive arguments. -I will listen to the entire round before I make a decision and sign my ballot. I think that’s my responsibility. Don’t try to take my ballot. -Similarly, don’t try to shake my hand after the round. I realize that some people won’t read this, and I guess it shouldn’t go under “non-negotiable” because I won’t drop you for doing it or anything, but I really don’t want to touch you.

Things that are purely opinion and preference: THEORY -Arguments that are general are always better than arguments that deal with your particular experience. You might be thinking “yeah, yeah” but I hear this in theory debates all the time. People make arguments like “This isn’t unpredictable because my opponent’s teammate has heard this case before,” or “This is really unfair because I don’t have a coach/am severely disadvantaged,” or “You should hold my opponent to a high standard because they come from a big team that has lots of resources.” I a) don’t think these arguments are very convincing (I’ve never voted for one) and b) think they make the round more personal than it really ought to be. -I will vote on an RVI, but I think that the arguments against RVIs are convincing and so you probably have to spend substantial time on it to beat that back. That being said, I won’t be angry. -If I had to default, I would default to competing interpretations, but I have absolutely no issues with reasonability. I prefer it if you give me a clear, objective way to evaluate “reasonability” because I don’t know how to best decide what qualifies as “reasonable” in a round (e.g., if you win an offensive standard to your competing interpretation, then you are reasonable).

FRAMEWORK -I // really hate // the argument that “ought not” means “moral permissibility.” I think that it is fundamentally false and based on poor grammar, and so I will accept most answers to it. I’m willing to listen fairly to most interpretations of the resolution, even ones that seem non-intuitive, but for some reason that one drives me crazy. -If you run some crazy complicated metaethic, do not be shifty in cross x. I might have the luxury of not having to really be able to explain/ understand the AC (or NC) until the round is over, but your opponent does not. I will do my best to hold debaters to my understanding of their arguments during cross x or prep, so if you mislead or are intentionally dense during cross x, I will be very sympathetic to arguments that either I should disregard the new explanation or that I should allow new responses to the newly explained argument. Once I’ve heard a case once or twice I tend to have less of an ability to pick up on this, so it’s usually important that you explain WHY they were misleading/ intentionally obtuse. -If you run a plan, I will default to net benefits. I pretty much think that net benefits is implied by a case with a plan. If you don’t run a plan…you should have a framework? But I’ll accept whatever framework the negative offers.

OTHER -“Paradigm”: I really, really try to be as tab as possible. If you run truth testing arguments, I’ll vote on truth testing arguments. If you run policy-style arguments, I’ll vote on those. If you run theory on why either of those is bad, I’ll listen to it, and I don’t have too much of a preference in either direction. That being said, I think the stock responses to very generic skeptical positions are pretty intuitive and so you will have to overcome that if you run skeptical positions. -Perms: If you perm, have a perm text. If you’re negative, don’t “perm.” -Kritiks: are fine. As with the warning on metaethics above, however, I will hold you to the way that you explain your arguments to your opponent. If you are annoyingly obtuse when answering questions or just regurgitate your cards, your speaks will be negatively effected. -Speaks: The best way to get good speaks from me is to have a strategy in the round that you’re executing from your first speech. It doesn’t have to be immediately obvious, but a well-thought-out strategy that controls the round will get better speaks than a Hail Mary pass in the 2AR.