Harvey,+Leilani

I did four years of policy in high school (at Coronado), and I debate at the University of Utah now in both policy and parli.

I'm generally fine with all sorts of arguments. It would be easier to list what I'm not okay with: specs, lame topicality args, and rudeness are my pet peeves. Overall, I will vote where it is easiest for me to do so. If you have specific questions that I don't answer here, feel free to ask me. Don't do stupid things; don't be rude to me, your opponents, or your partner. I will vote down excessive disrespect. You will lose speaker points for being impolite. And finally, don't be afraid to ask if you have any other questions. I'm more than willing to answer them. Also, I would love to help you work through the problems in your arguments after rounds or tournaments. Just e-mail me: Leilani.Harvey@utah.edu

As far as speed goes, I think it's really quite bad for the progress of policy debate as a whole, and it destroys most of the education you could potentially gain from debate. I can understand you, that's not the point. I just think that it's too often used to exclude new debaters from the round. I'm not going to vote you down on it, I just think you shouldn't exclude people in round (that means don't slay novices just because you can.)

My positions on specific arguments:

CP/DA: I think this is awesome and sadly not used enough. That being said, I think word PICS are really lame and you have better and more competitive options. If you want to run them, that's fine, but you need to justify it and you had better be right.

Kritiks: I love Kritiks, but I don't purport to understand them all. You need to delineate the story for me. You must explain my role as the judge in the round as well as the role of the ballot. I default to a policy-making framework if nobody gives me another one. That being said, K's need to be run right. I want a legit and a specific link story, a clear impact, and an alternative that's more thought out than "reject the aff." I would be sure to give me a clear thesis as well.

Critical Affs/Performance Critical aff's are fine, but you need to set the framework for the round IN the 1AC. You should also be topical to an extent. Performance is fine as well, as long as I understand why your project matters and why it's topical (and if it's not, then why it shouldn't be).

Topicality/Procedurals: Topicality is awesome, as long as it's not stupid and as long as you make me know that you understand your arguments. I need the standards and the voters pulled throughout the round, or I tend not to vote on it. As long as they're shadow extended at least. But I'd prefer that your standards are impacted. I usually ignore one-word theory arguments like 'predictability', 'time skew', 'reasonability', and 'fairness' unless you explain to me the in-round impacts on them and their importance in the round. I don't know why "education" matters in the round unless you tell me why.

I don't particularly love theory arguments. I think they are not strategic. Everyone knows that condo/dispo/uncondo doesn't really matter. Everyone knows that time skew only exists because the other team outsmarted you. That being said, I will vote on particularly abusive things. And if you can tell me the story of why the 3 condo counterplans are abusive, then that's fine. I'm just telling you it's an uphill battle.

Specs are really obnoxious. I think they're lame and they need to be run right if you want me to vote on them.

I will absolutely not vote on plan flaw. I think it's stupid and unnecessary. Unless you give me a ridiculously fantastic explanation of why the specific plan flaw is abusive, you will not get my ballot on it.