Heyo! Emily Mendelson, she/her // add me to the email chain: email@example.com
I debated at Binghamton for four years starting as a college novice, taught at the UTNIF for two summers and qualified to the NDT my junior and senior year. Currently I'm a grad student at Baylor and the program coordinator for the Broome County Debate Alliance. As a debater I read mostly disability stuff before doing more performance-y things like coloring and balloon animals, but that was just a framework argument.
Please speak slower and clearer than you think you need to for the foreseeable future while we're all figuring out the best practices for online debates. While I don't think people should be flowing off of speech docs, I think flashing analytics (or at least overviews, CP text, interps) is probably valuable just in case clarity or wifi issues arise. From what I've learned so far: debates are better when everyone has strong enough wifi to keep their cameras on, cx is messy when everyone's trying to talk over each other bc of zoom auto-muting whoever isn't the loudest. I'm sympathetic to performance teams who are going to be uniquely disadvantaged by the virtual format, but I'm excited to see how people make it work.
1. Check if everyone is there before you start your speech??? lmao I thought this one was intuitive but if my camera is off and you don't hear from me... I am not ready for you to start
2. I flow on paper, please give me some pen time even if you flash analytics
3. Speech docs w/ analytics are not a substitution for clarity
I'll vote any way you want me to with judge instruction, and if not, I love flowing so I'll default to the line-by-line.
Reading framework: I'm unpersuaded by fairness as a terminal impact, I think at most it's an internal link to education/clash/some better impact. That being said, I'm absolutely down to vote for fairness if there's a well-warranted abuse scenario or the affirmative is egregious in defending absolutely nothing. Specific TVA's are an easy way to persuade me in favor of your model of debate as long as they meet your interp.
Answering framework: You're better off concentrating most of your offense on impact turning framework in front of me, but I also think a lot of K teams under-utilize counterinterps and counter-definitions. I don't think your model of debate needs to be perfect but I do think there should be some explanation of limits and ground division between both sides.
K affs: Love it! I think there should be some sort of "method" to the aff in the sense that it's not just some sort of truth advocacy text that says 'vote aff because we say x thing is good.' Use examples to your advantage and please don't be afraid to actually defend something in CX. I was definitely guilty of being shifty but I would love it if you clearly defined the parameters and concepts in the aff instead so I have something better than a nebulous understanding of what you're saying.
Policy affs: On average, I think policy teams need to be doing a lot better job at explaining solvency throughout the debate. In the rebuttals, walk me through how you want me to evaluate arguments in comparison to one another, even if it means you go much slower and read less cards. I promise it will pay off. My biggest shortcoming with policy affirmatives is forgetting what certain acronyms mean, so if I look confused (which will definitely happen because I'm pretty expressive during speeches) take a minute and explain some jargon you might be using.
Making my decision: Clear judge framing arguments will give you an easy way to predict which way I'm likely to vote. Clear impact calculus in the rebuttals is especially important to me and minimizes the likelihood I have to intervene. I love judging and I love learning so whatever you're reading I promise you'll have my full attention.