Lucas-Bolin,+Alyssa

 Background:

Assistant Director at UNLV, Assistant coach at Notre Dame 2 years of debate at UNLV, 2 years at Redlands, and three years of high school debate at GBS If you have more questions than this-alyssavlucasbolin@gmail.com **This is my college philosophy, most things are the same but obviously ignore anything that explicitly references the war powers topic. The "civility" portion probably applies even more in high school. ** Ar ** ** gument/Ideology Stuff-New October 2013 ** For reasons that I certainly feel I have no obligation to explain over the internet, my approach to some of this has changed at least a little bit. In order for me to be on your pref sheet, when you are affirmative you need to a) be talking about the topic in some way shape or form and b) take some form of political action in order to solve for the harms you presented and c) you should do these things while maintaining some form of civility and decorum in the debate space. This means critical affs with plans and/or very clear advocacy statements are fine. However, if you intend on, when affirmative, using the ballot to a) criticize the resolution without presenting a topical plan of action or b) Use the debate space for personal attacks and/or to disrupt the civility of the debate, I do not want to, in any circumstances, be in the back of the room judging you.   For the negative, critical argument that indict the plan and/or the 1ac are acceptable, critical arguments that, as mentioned above, use personal attacks and/or disrupt the civility of the debate space are not ok with me. Noone should feel unsafe or emotionally attacked while I am judging, and I will intervene in the future if I perceive this to be the case. In terms of framework, both sides need to do a good job of explaining what I should DO with the framework arguments-Exclude the aff? Exclude the alternative? View the debate through a particular lens? These issues very rarely get resolved adequately. ** CPs ** -Literature is the best standard for CPs-I think negs get away with completely arbitrary counterplans that are not predictable too often. Besides that, I'm pretty neutral on theory issues-Condo etc=up for grabs.

-I will default to the status quo if the neg loses a conditional cp (/alt/counteradvocacy) in the 2nr if and only if the 2nr explicitly flags this as an option-obviously, the affirmative can make responses to why that is or is not legitimate. I'm neutral on that portion of the debate, but I do believe that the neg should at least have to make it explicit as an option in order for me to consider it. ** DAs ** -This topic has some of the best disad ground ever and you should exploit this. -Good, but you should know that I do a lot of politics research so I'm probably going to know from the beginning if you are reading a wonky/not so good politics disad. I'd much rather have you stick to the heart of the literature and fight the good fight than try to avoid the battle. ** Topicality ** ...Definitely an important part of this topic. I'm more likely to be persuaded by arguments about why your interpretation is the best for ground/fairness/education in the DEBATE SPACE versus definitions that simply provide a complex "true" legal definition. For example, you may win that your definition is the most precise legal term, but if that excludes one of the four areas of the topic entirely then you have yourself an issue.

I definitely respect debaters who draw a line in the sand at the proliferation of ridiculous affs and have the audacity to go for T. ** Get off my lawn- ** ** -Depth over breadth, depth over breadth, depth over breadth. **

-Speed is good and a neat part of the game, but BE EXTREMELY CLEAR on counterplan texts and theory issues. I have a decent ear and flow, but I do not want to be put in the position where I don't know the finer details of exactly what the counterplan does until the 2nr. Don't be surprised if I jump in and awkwardly clarify what the CP text is, etc, Seriously-I would rather do it mid debate than try to reconstruct this later on.  -I've gone back to flowing on paper. Do what you want with this information. -I will read cards (good research is one of the critical educational components of debate) but only for arguments that a) have a claim, warrant, and an impact and b) that have been communicated clearly throughout the round-I am not a judge who is going to pretend to know what is going on during the debate, much less in your evidence, and reconstruct it afterwards-I feel like figuring it out from the beginning is more objective for you and I feel like it's an important part of debate for debaters educationally to not only make an argument, but to communicate the argument to the judge effectively-That's a subtle distinction, but an important one (at least to me). Evidence is a critical, crucial part of making arguments, but it doesn't REPLACE argumentation

- Either read a good card or no card at all-Well warranted ev=Good-Smart analytics=good-Reading a bad card just to say that you read a card on the issue facilitates bad research and arbitrary debate. Perhaps the biggest cop-out phrase in judging debates is "They outcarded you on this issue". WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? WHY DO I CARE IF YOU HAVE ELEVEN CARDS THAT SAY THE SAME THING OR NOTHING AT ALL? More is not better. Better is better. I do not care whatsoever how many cards you read if they don't say anything.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">-Things that I find irritating (not in an "you will autolose" way, but in an "I will be irritated" type way)

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">A. Consult counterplans

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">B. ASPEC

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">C. Dumb names for advantages

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">D. Tiny politics DAs that are not actually on the docket/have no literature surrounding them etc just because you found one card. Good for you. That is not a DA. Coincidentally, GOOD politics DAs are the best thing ever and should be run at nearly all times.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">E. Anything based in psychoanalysis

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">F. Nietzsche

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">- Things that I find beyond irritating and into the realm of unacceptable

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">A. Sexist/heteronormative/racist etc. remarks/behavior that create an unsafe space for debate

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">B. Entitlement

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">C. Disrespect-Blatant assertiveness=good. Treating people like they are not worthy opponents or like they are beneath you=NOT GOOD.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">D. Card clipping (duh)

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">- Things that I find especially pleasant

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">A. Topic specificity

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">B. People who know their evidence (preferably because they cut it, but also people who make files their own even if they got them elsewhere)

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">C. Bold moves in round/Going outside of the box

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">D. Good politics DAs

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">E. In-depth negative strategies-Depth over breadth

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">F. Focus on the case debate from the negative-That applies to both you policy and critical folks out there