Willoughby,+Lisa

1. School affiliation: Henry W. Grady High School in Atlanta. Grady is an urban public school in midtown Atlanta where I have coached for @ 25 years

2. # of rounds judged on this year's topic: @14 as of November, 9th, 2011

3. Topicality –I default to a Competing Interpretations Framework for T, but I don’t really care. I do believe that the rationale for why T is a voting issue should match the framework you have selected, and it should be argued in the round if you want to win the argument.

4. Critique-Old school as I am, I still see myself as a policymaker unless you choose to clarify a different role for my ballot. For that reason, I would prefer to hear an alternative I can understand. “Reject the affirmative” with no explanation of what that rejection entails in the real world of policy actors doesn’t really meet my expectations of a policy option. I strongly dislike pejorative or prejudicial discourse or representations and will vote to punish that discourse if the debaters explain genuine implications of that discourse or representation and if they warrant the reasons for why my ballot is a legitimate punishment. I loathe superficial discussion of esoteric authors you haven’t read, or amalgamations of K authors who would never wish to have their work considered alongside each other.

5. Performance-I think debate is a good thing; I wouldn’t still be doing this if I did not. That said, I am open to arguments reinterpreting the context or format for the activity. I do expect debaters to debate the framework, and to justify any reinterpretation through argumentation, not song or dance.

6. Counterplan theory-Ultimately fairness is critical to me. If the affirmative is tied to some interpretation of the USFG as its actor, it seems to me that the negative ought to have some reciprocal limitations. For example, one reasonable limit might be a requirement of a solvency advocate for a CP, or a ‘real world’ actor as the agent could be another. I’m not saying that a States CP is always illegitimate, but it is certainly debatably unfair. Likewise, a Consultation CP seems abusive to me for any number of reasons. PICs that distort or distract the debate from the resolution disturb me as well. Granted, AFFs may justify some of the more theoretically abusive CPs by the way they write their plans. I would encourage both sides to establish standards for what they view as a reasonable division of scope for their side, and debaters would need to justify argumentation for or against any given CP to win.

I place a premium on clarity and civility in the round. I will let you know if I cannot flow. Debaters who repeatedly interrupt their partners or opponents either in the speeches or the CX do themselves a disservice. Slow down for T or theory arguments. I love to hear comparative decision calculus that actually provides analysis of disad links and impacts or affirmative advantage solvency.