Please include me on any email chains:

zedhatool@gmail.com

General/Not format specific:

- Above all, I will not tolerate any discrimination in round or out of round. Debate is a space that needs to be safe and open to all debaters.

- I'm mostly tech over truth but I have a higher bar for bad arguments.

- I'm a huge shill for Ks (but I have 90s K debater tastes), so if you run and understand Schlag I'll give you perfect speaks

- I have read a lot of literature, and I have experience with philosophy from the pre-Socratics to critical race theory. That said, I will prefer good explanation. If you can't explain your phil well, I won't vote for you.

- I'm okay with fw v K debate, but I really prefer if you substantively address the K, so either prove it wrong or K it back.

K Debate:

I want to expand on the above point a little bit, because I think there are two really bad attitudes toward K Affs (and really Ks in general) that pop up in debate rounds. The first is fear: Debaters are afraid of K affs, and so instead of trying to address why they're wrong, they use framework and theory arguments. Kritiks operate just like any other argument; arguments have an epistemology and an ontology. The difference between a kritik and, for example, stock issues, is that debaters using stock issues are often not aware of their own epistemology and ontology because they're normalized within the structure of debate. DEFEND YOUR EPISTEMOLOGY AND ONTOLOGY! Kritiks want to tell you your ways of knowing and categorization are in some way bad, you need to say that they're not. The K is wrong, and here's why. The second is disgust: debaters often think that K affs are, in the words of someone I otherwise consider an excellent debater, "cheating." I think this kind of attitude is bad for debate, full stop. While I will vote for framework if it wins the flow, I think framework v K arguments are usually bad, and win most often because debaters are unprepared to deal with them. The K is just another argument, so prove it wrong. Contrary to what I think is popular belief, debate isn't primarily a research event; debate is a critical thinking event. Use your brain to address the K, not some static, stale conception of debate that will instantly be proven to be anti-black/sexist/capitalist or whatever the K is you're hitting.

- My default interpretation of debate is that the only rules are speech time and speech order, and the only normative standards are fairness and education, but I can be convinced to change any of these positions

Policy specific:

I don't really have much else to say. Feel free to ask me questions before the round.

Pref sheet (policy)

1. Topical K affs/KvK debate/Topical performance affs/Ks on neg

2. Fw v K/policy affs/non-T K affs

3. Trad debate

LD Specific:

I am not a huge fan of tricks.

Pref sheet (LD)

1. Topical K affs/KvK debate

2. LARP rounds/Trad debate (just as long as it isn't too slow. I get that trad LD is a speech event but come on)

3. Tricks

Hello! I am Michelle and I primarily competed in policy and Lincoln Douglas in high school in both progressive and traditional styles for both events. I also competed in Worlds 

Evidence

- please do not spend your entire time arguing which author has more phds.

- it is fine to point out how one author is a random person running a blog compared with a college professor; however, you still need to address the inherent logic.

- even if you have evidence supporting an argument, make sure you can also provide analytics and demonstrate you understand your evidence. make an argument, dont just read evidence

- if you don't have evidence, make sure you have solid analysis.

Questioning

- I don't do flex prep, cx is an important time to demonstrate your knowledge and understanding of your case and topic.

- be civil during cx

Speed & Clarity

- Although, I am fine with some speed, arguments and warrants need to be carefully enunciated and explained. If you are going too fast, I will say clear. After the third clear, I will simply stop flowing (this does not apply to worlds, do not spread)

- Please signpost and have clear explicit extensions of arguments/cards. However don't just say extend weller 17, explain the significance.

Timing

- Please time yourselves and your opponents if you would like. I will also be keeping time. You can finish your sentence quickly once time is up.

- Use ALL of your prep time. You can always make your speech better. I will dock points if there is time left on either prep or speech time (I give a 10 sec leeway for speech)

Additional

- I like "even if " arguments. Don't just have only one response unless it is an extremely well developed response.

- weigh the round, spoon feed me why I should vote for your side. Assume I know nothing and I am a blank slate

*****Lincoln Douglas Specific

Framework

- If you are in Lincoln Douglas, there needs to be a framework (value and vc) (regardless if you are traditional or progressive) as it is suppose to be a philosophical debate. If you completely drop framework and the opponent points it out i will vote for the opponent but I will not be happy about it. I cannot evaluate something if I do not have the mechanism to evaluate it by.

- If you run morality as a value, please do not just say "ought indicates a moral obligation hence the value for today's round is morality" or "because the resolution has the word ought, the value is morality." explain the significance and importance of prioritizing morality. If you run morality as a v, have someone back it up and have actual standards.

- I especially like it when you tie actual philosophy into the framework and throughout the case instead of only an impact calc. If you run phil, make sure you understand it and can explain it simply.

- DO NOT drop framework after the 1AC or the 1NC.

Other

I prefer a traditional debate but I will vote on most things if well explained.

- No tricks or performance

- if you are running a cp, make sure its case specific and the aff can't just perm it.

****FOR NCFL - cp are not permitted by bylaws but i can't do anything unless the other students calls it out and makes it a voter

- if you are running a k, make sure you understand and defend the epistemology and ontology. Also even if you are an expert on post or pre-fiat Ks, explain it simply to me and your opponent.

- it is going to be hard for me to vote on theory alone. if you are running theory, make sure it actually makes sense and isn't super generic. You need to weigh standards, voters, and justifications for paradigm issues. If you do run theory, do not ONLY run theory. Don't run shoe theory or stuff along those lines.

- Make sure you have kvis in your last speech and do some weighing of both the practical and moral implications.

- if your opponents drops and argument or you win an argument, you need to mention it

****FOR WORLDS

take your opponents on their highest ground and then explain how they lose regardless. 

Ask POIs!!! can be question or statement. Be strategic with your pois where it is when they are asked, how they are asked, or who is asking.

please stand for POIs

*brownie points if you run something more phil heavy, but only if you understand it 

email: mzheng@hamilton.edu