Spector,+Rebecca

I debated at New Trier High School, as well as for the University of Southern California for four years, 2001-2005. I have continued to judge sporadically after college, both novice and varsity, at tournaments nationwide.

I vote on any debate argument, as long as it is explained and extended throughout the round. Below are some guidelines for how I analyze different arguments:

For topicality, you need to explain the abuse story. If you are going for it in the 2NR, make sure you spend ample time on it, if not the whole speech. For theory, make sure you answer the other teams specific arguments rather than just explaining your own. I would evaluate theory first before anything, so if you win that, I won't even look at the disads, counterplans or critiques. Because of that mindset however, it means that you have to explain the abuse. Critiques I have no problem with, but I would like it explained more than just the tags on the cards. Overviews in the 2NR for critiques is always good. If you are running both a critique and a counterplan, it's always a good idea to explain why the counterplan doesn't link, although not required.

Suggestion for the last speeches: I look for impact analysis at the end. Sure it's fine to just extend your impact, but it's much more convincing to me if you give arguments as to why your arguments outweigh the other, whether it be timeframe, magnitude, discrimination, in-round discourse, or whatever. Point to a specific reason as to why I should look to your argument before anything else.