Dukes,+Nefertiti

My name is Nefertiti. I debated in Public Forum for four years and debated Collegiate Lincoln-Douglas (one person policy) for four years at WKU. I currently coach policy debate in the Miami-Dade Urban Debate League. But, I have also coached Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum at various camps around the country.

Speed

I don’t think you can go faster than I can flow but it’s important that you slow down on tags and evidence. I also think the debate should get slower as it goes on when you begin to extend evidence and conduct impact calculus.

K’s

I love critical debates but that doesn’t mean that I will vote on every critical argument I hear. It should be well developed and have a clear role of the ballot. I am willing to hear critical arguments from both the affirmative and negative. Theory can be run as a strategy to counteract critical arguments but it should not be your only strategy.

CP’s

CP’s are great but they need to be mutually exclusive from the affirmative. Net-benefits are a legitimate way of proving mutual exclusivity. CP’s as with all other offense in a round can be conditional (as long as the affirmative has not won arguments about why this is bad)

Theory Arguments

In my mind, the real theory argument is topicality. However, you must still win it to win the round. I evaluate T like it is a disadvantage with the standards serving as the impacts. Whoever wins that their interpretation is best for debate, wins the argument. Theory arguments not based on the topicality of the round will be very hard to win in front of me without any sort of proven abuse.

FW/Values

To me, these are just fancy ways of saying impact calculus. Feel free to have values, framework, etc. Just tell me what it means in the context of the round and how it impacts my ballot.