Woodward,+Natalie

Background: I debated for four years from 1997-2001 at Middle Tennessee State and coached high school and college (mainly Vanderbilt, Macalester and Blake) for five years. I have an M.A. in political theory. I took several years off to get my J.D. and start legal practice. I am currently coaching at the University of Minnesota and Washburn High School and its my first year back. I attended the UCO tournament.

This topic (college): You should know that I have done extensive legal work on indefinite detention, including defense work for Guantanamo detainees, and after law school worked for a branch of the United Nations on international human rights issues. In general, I believe that debaters should able to run whatever arguments they choose. However, due to the work experiences I described above it is very difficult for me to hear graphic depictions of torture. If that is part of your strategy, then I am likely not the best judge for you.

Paperless debate: I do not count jumping as prep time.

Ultimately I view the debate round as your show and will judge the debate round in the way the debaters ask me to adjudicate. As such, I expect you to be doing the work during the round, especially impact and evidence comparison. Similarly, tell me why your arguments are better. I am a lawyer -- I spend all day weighing different arguments for fun. I would much prefer voting on your argument analysis than having to make it myself post-round.

Play nice. Being a smart ass is fine, just being an ass means lower speaker points.

Topicality -- is not my favorite thing to vote on and so typically requires a lot of work in the block and 2nr and specificity in your arguments. If affirmative, however, you should have offense on this argument and not just rely on generics. Same goes with most theory debates. My threshold for voting on framework arguments structured around T violations is a bit lower.

Kritiks -- I debated a lot of kritiks and have read many of the authors I see currently used in rounds. I love a good K debate (either running or answering) and equally despise a bad one. You should have specific links and be able to provide on-point analysis if neg. If affirmative, just reading your generic "K bad / Our Framework or arguments re the role of the ballot is good" is probably not your best strategic choice in front of me.

Straight up policy debate -- Love it. I am fairly straightforward in my views on this -- specific and good evidence or advocates are best, if going for theory, put a lot of (virtual) ink on the flow and compare impacts and probabilities. Obviously offense is your best bet here.

Performance/Project Forms of Debate -- Again, like kritiks, I love to see these debates done well and hate having to judge them done poorly. In general you need to win the role of the ballot.

Speaker Points -- Prior to UCO, I had not judged at a tournament since 2006. Thus, in the few weeks going up to UCO I looked at speaker points are realized the average had increased significantly in the last 7 years. Thus, I decided to raise my average speaker points. I defaulted higher for all teams I judged as I am in the process of creating my new scale. If you have questions about your points, please feel free to ask me.