CX: Policymaker. Debating between two opposing viewpoints makes a bill a law. Simple right? In this activity we argue both sides of an issue, so as a debater you should use your past experiences as an aff or neg to your advantage when you are arguing your case. Be prepared, show me through your evidence and in your own words why the other side's contentions do not hold up versus your plan/disadvantages. Winners do not just read their evidence cards, they understand the content of their cards and use that content to their advantage when on offense or defense. Try to limit your dropped arguments, and if you are dropping any arguments then signal it to me in your speech (I will not penalize you for this). Most important, relax and have fun with this!

*my email is babbonnete@gmail.com*

LD- I'm fine with speed. run whatever you want.

PF- Steps to getting my vote: extend, line by line rebuttal, collapse in summary, if you're speaking second then I expect your summary to address attacks made in last rebuttal. Also: weigh in EVERY SPEECH.

Policy-

Here are some of my personal preferences: I like K's. Signpost. I don't expect the 1AR to respond to a 13 paged card dump, just do your best by grouping arguments and responding in a way that allows you enough time to save your 1AC from falling into LOTR fire pit.

I am a former LD and Policy debater and have been periodically judging for the past 7 years.

LD Paradigm: I tend toward a progressive approach to LD, particularly if the topic lends itself to that format, with some traditional exceptions. I want strong analysis and logic and claims with warrants, and you must give voters. I am comfortable with speed but do not find it to be persuasive or a useful life skill. A smaller number of high-quality arguments will always outweigh a larger number of poorly explained arguments. I maintain some traditional leanings in that I do not particularly like counter plans or DAs in LD, but I am open to theory arguments if they are well done. If you want me to judge based on your value/criterion, then carry your structure throughout the entire round.

Policy Paradigm: I am pretty flexible and will generally let the debaters tell me how to evaluate the round, but I have a fondness for stock issues. I most enjoy debates with a lot of direct clash, and I least enjoy debates that devolve into an impact battle. Link and Uniqueness are the most important pieces to me, and I am more likely to vote in your favor if you spend more time on those issues than on the nature of the impact. I will not do the work for you or remember all the authors and evidence that you read, so things like "cross-apply the X card" with no additional analysis on how X card answers the argument or is better hold no weight with me. (Only the 1AR gets a pass on this if necessary to respond to the Neg Block as long as the 2AR cleans it up.) Please signpost!

Evidence: Evidence is useful, depending on the source, but should not be relied upon exclusively. Strong analytical arguments can be equally or more persuasive in the absence of specific evidence to support a point. This is particularly true if you are faced with an argument you have never heard before and have not prepared in advance. While I will mostly rely on the debaters to poke holes in evidence or analysis, I cannot avoid my own knowledge of sources, and I will not permit a known lie to win even if the other team doesn't call it out as a lie. I typically never look at the actual evidence in a round and rely on the debaters to communicate it to me, but the new online nature of debate may change my mind.

Speed: I am comfortable with speed, but I do not find excessive speed to be persuasive or a useful life skill. If it is unintelligible or poorly explained, then you might as well not say it. Reading taglines slowly and the card itself quickly is not recommended since the unintelligible substance won't mean anything to me and the tagline will be discounted accordingly. I will not vote you down purely for using excessive speed, but if I cannot understand it, I cannot flow it and the argument will not appear on my flow when I look back at the end to make my decision.

I am fine with most off-case arguments. I will vote on Topicality as an independent issue. Counterplans must be competitive. Kritiks are welcome if they are explained and supported well and presented in the 1NC. Be sure that you are very comfortable explaining your K before you run it and be sure to explain why the K is important to this policy debate.

Hi! I competed in LD, PF, and CD in high school, along with several platform events (OO, Info, DX, FX). I did interp events in middle school, but didn't we all? I'm in college now and basically spend every weekend judging debate tournaments. If you have any specific questions about my paradigms or a decision, please reach out to me. My email is graceejudicee@tamu.edu! I love providing feedback!

LD

I don’t like spreading. The purpose of a debate round is to use critical thinking skills to convince your opponent/judge of a specific argument, not speak so fast that you lose your opponent and gain the upper hand in the round.

Generally speaking, I prefer a traditional style of debate. However, if you chose to go for a theory shell argument, I will flow it. Just be careful. If you ONLY/MAINLY go for theory, there is a good chance that your opponent will have an adequate response, leaving you with very little offense.

When it comes to evidence, if you are sharing it with your opponent, share it with me as well (graceejudicee@tamu.edu). Don’t just give me a card name and date and expect me to value its importance. Convince me that it is important, accurate, and more reliable than your opponent’s card.

PF

Doing the weighing for me is like an insurance policy. In rounds where there is a lot of clash, some arguments turn into a wash. When you weigh, in addition to extending arguments across the flow, you are giving me more reasons to vote for you.

When it comes to evidence, if you are sharing it with your opponent, share it with me as well (graceejudicee@tamu.edu). Don’t just give me a card name and date and expect me to value its importance. Convince me that your evidence is important, accurate, and more reliable than your opponent’s card.

If I hear something in final focus that wasn’t brought up in summary, you’ve just wasted your own time.

If you are second rebuttal, you need to frontline.

Congress

A great PO will make my ballot, but I always prefer great speakers. I know it is difficult to find a PO in lot of rounds, so I always appreciate volunteers.

If you aren’t the first affirmative or first negation, I expect some sort of clash. Refer back to your fellow representatives. I don’t want to hear 3 speeches with the same exact points.

Questioning is important. If you have great speeches, but fail to participate in the rest of the round, that will result in a lower ranking.

Don't speak just to speak with zero preparation if you know it will be a terrible speech! I'd rather a chamber move to previous question after 3 speeches than hear someone speak for 2 minutes off the top of their head. Keep in mind, this is different than writing a speech during recess. I always appreciate those that offer to write during recess to keep the round going.

I'd rather hear one "6" speech from you than three "4" speeches.

Once you enter the chamber, stay in "character", even during recess. Compared to other styles of debate, delivery and presentation is more important.

IEs/Extemp

Make me laugh. I love humor, but forced humor and stock introductions are awkward. Cringe.

For extemporaneous speaking, PLEASE provide a clear introduction with a source AND a preview of your three points. Extemporaneous speeches without some sort of preview/roadmap during the introduction are often unorganized. Also, actually answer the question. This seems like a no brainer, but you'd be surprised.

Delivery and presentation always matter, but CONTENT is SO important.

In out rounds, I expect the time of your speech to be pretty close to the time limit on the TFA ballot. Basically, 4 minute extemporaneous speeches in semi finals won't fly with me.

LD

No excessive spreading where you are hiccuping and wheezing trying to breathe, or progressive arguments. I like to see direct contention class and Value/VC debate.