Maddy,+Leigha

I debated for two and a half years for Moore High School in Moore, OK, a suburb of Oklahoma City, and I now debate as a junior for the University of Oklahoma.

Edited 12/4/2013.

Here's how I feel about certain types of arguments:

__Topicality__: Topicality needs to be well-debated and well-explained. Being a 2A, I do give a little more weight to arguments like "potential abuse isn't a voter" and "reasonability" arguments. That being said, t-version of the aff arguments made by the negative are slayer, and I'm more than willing to vote on an unanswered T-Version of the aff argument.

Just like with any other argument, topicality needs to have impacts and internal-links to those impacts. Good explanation of ground that is lost in terms of certain arguments, your ability to contest the aff, etc. make these arguments much stronger than just saying "We don't get good ground." Think out arguments that wouldn't link the aff because of your interpretation.

Competing interpretation debates means that you need to compare your and the other team's interpretation of the word being contested. Why your interp is better than theirs, etc. Impacts, people.

__Dis-Ads__: I have reluctantly voted on non-unique dis-ads. Know that if you read a non-unique dis-ad in front of me, I will be silently seething in the back of the room. Know your arguments well enough to know that Congress (in real life) has passed whatever politics dis-ad you're running. Be knowledgeable here.

Despite my university affiliation, I actually don't hate hearing dis-ads. I do think specific dis-ads to the aff with a good story can be devastating, but if you do want to run a spending DA or a politics DA, specific links to the aff or really good articulation as to why your generic link does actually link. Remember in rebuttals to tell the story of the dis-ad and how that interacts with the aff.

Remember, dis-ads are like chains. If you take out one part, the chain doesn't work.

__Counter-plans__: A really inventive, well-thought out and researched CP can be really devastating. I think executive order and supreme court CPs are kind of dumb, especially if the net-benefit is a bad politics dis-ad or something. ALSO: counter-plans need offensive net-benefits. Period. Just reading some solvency take-outs and articulating those as the net-benefit to the CP seems pretty weak to me.

__Word PICs:__ I am iffy about word PICs. I admire the idea of a Word PIC, but from my experience, most teams don't articulate very well why just using a different word or phrase solves for the net benefit or the aff.

But, as in the case of regular counter-plans, I think a really solid word PIC that makes a valid argument as to why a certain word the affirmative uses is problematic/bad/turns the aff is good.

I do not want to hear the "The" PIC or "We" PIC. Just. Ugh.

__Kritiks__: I go to OU. I run the K. I don't think that they're ~inherently~ cheating; it's another way for the neg to test the af. As much as I like kritiks, though, you need to able to adequately explain what your kritik is about- how the affirmative links, the impact of your kritik, and how your alt 'solves,' if it claims to. Throwing around jargon doesn't mean that you or even I "get" it; being able to explain that jargon in speeches and if asked in CX, does. Also, don't expect me to know what your kritik is about just by using the author's name. There are a lot of dead French dudes out there. Make it accessible.

Post-structuralism and post-modernism is confusing as hell. I am familiar with a lot of it, but don't assume I'm gonna get your Baudrillard or Bataille K just because I go to OU. Explanation, explanation, explanation.

As for "identity" Ks, please don't rhetorically double-turn yourself. It's a pretty bad idea if you're running a feminism argument to call the other team "you guys." It makes you look dumb and I think if you're making the argument that discourse matters, the neg can latch onto it and really screw you over.

LINKS: I'm okay with non-specific links, as long as you can spin how the affirmative links within the wording of that card in a specific way. Say, for example, if the neg was running a Security K, and the link card says that "seeking to protect only furthers the security mindset," by making the analysis that the aff links into the security mindset by weaponizing space or something, then that's legit.

Links of omission are frustrating to me. I've run Give Back the Land plenty of times. And I still hate the "you didn't acknowledge stolen land" argument. It is not that tough to find a generic K link to the topic.

Be warned: If you know my kritik soft spots, I am more likely to be tough on you if you run those pet arguments in front of me.

There's no K I'm willing to just not listen to, but I do just personally disagree with Wilderson. Also, if you're thinking about running De-Dev, just run the cap K. You'll save yourself a lot of time by looking not silly.

__Theory__: I prefer if there's actually abuse in the round that occurs because of a certain argument being made against the aff. The neg going two off and case probably isn't a valid abusive conditional strat. Reading 3 CPs with no evidence or solvency mechanism, two blippy dis-ads, and a three card K plus case is probably abusive.

CP theory is cool. Permutation theory is cool. I usually won't reject the team just on theory arguments, but I will not evaluate the perm or CP because of it if you totally ignore theory.

__Framework__: I actually like seeing framework debates. I do think that debate can have the potential to be "revolutionary", or at least opinion changing, but if you win that critical arguments shouldn't be allowed within the debate in terms of the flow, I'll grant you that flow.

I do appreciate really clever counter-interpretations made by the aff. If you have a solid, smart counter-interp, and can articulate why most of the neg's arguments go away under your counter-interp, then you'll be rewarded for that. In the same turn, the T-Version of the aff argument will also be rewarded if the aff doesn't answer it.

Impact-turns on framework are fun. Explain why their education/ground is bad/problematic and that's a pretty solid strat. In the same turn, the negative needs to prove why their education and ground they should get is good.

__Affirmatives__: I'm cool with policy and critical affirmatives. I don't think you have to defend the USFG. Do your thing.

__"Performance"__: I'm more than willing to judge rounds where teams who run "non-traditional" arguments and communication styles are debating. Make an argument, and you're solid.

As for in-round behavior:
 * I take prep time for flashing. Prep time stops as soon as the flash drive leaves you computer.
 * Don't be a huge jerk. This doesn't mean you have to hug your opponent after the round, but if both people in CX are just screaming at each other, I'm going to be frustrated.
 * spreading is great, just be clear. it's not worth going that fast if no one knows what you're saying. I will yell "clear" at you.
 * If you say you're going line-by line, then do so. If you deviate from that, at least signpost.
 * Humor is appreciated. But, if you think you're funny, it probably won't be. Use discretion.
 * organization is great.
 * prep before the 1NR is silly. You have a whole 8 minutes of prep for your 1NR during the 2NC and CX.
 * if you're reading off of a laptop, make sure you flash over the cards you read to your opponents. If you end up not reading cards, tell them sometime after your speech before CX or something. If you're reading off paper, let your opponents see your cards.
 * say "Mark it there" if you're marking it. Otherwise, that's clipping.