CX(Policy) Debate

I LOVE direct clash, so if you can ensure that your arguments are responding to what's been presented in the round then that will certainly be reflected in the speaker points for the round.
I prefer roadmaps to be short and concise. They do not need to be exaggerated, simply such as off-case then on-case, or off-case: 1T, 2DA, 1CP then moving to on-case. Throughout the round I have always encouraged signposting, it ensures that your arguments end up on the flow where you want them to go, if you do not do this then you run the risk of me putting it where I think it should go and this could work against you. Take control of the round do not let me do this simply by signposting the argumentation throughout your speech

T-Topicality
I have a low threshold on T for this resolution(22-23), so I would not spend much time on it past the constructive. Unless the AFF is truly not topical which is difficult to imagine with the broadness of this year's topic. I would encourage addressing it and moving on, for the NEG again unless the AFF is truly not topical and the violation is abundantly clear then I probably won't be voting on this in the round.

DA-Disadvantage
In my personal opinion, this is the 2nd highest level of the debate that has been participated in for this topic. I love for the link-internal link chain to clearly show me how we get to whatever impact you are advocating for throughout the DA(s) you run in the round. I would highly recommend impact analysis as the round progresses. Please know the difference between impact calc and impact weighing, both are good just don't say you are doing an impact calc when you are actually doing impact weighing.

CP-Counterplan
I don't mind these but want a clear explanation throughout the round as to why they can't be permed, what are the net benefits of doing it through the CP, and why is the CP competitive compared to the AFF. There are lots of ways for the AFF to answer the many different CPs that have come through on this resolution, and I have enjoyed the CP debate on this year's topic more than in previous years. For the NEG these take a ton of work for me to vote on, and for my ballot, it is not difficult for the AFF to answer them in the rounds.

K-Kritique
I will not interfere, but I do not spend much time if any at all with the literature so you are going to have to do a ton of analysis...which as a NEG Strat in my rounds is probably a bad idea cause I tend to vote on clash and where that's happening. I'm not saying don't do it, but be prepared to lose me quickly and lose my ballot quickly if the K does not make sense or has all the right elements to the argument.

ON-CASE
THIS IS MY FAVORITE!!!! Especially this year, the abundance of evidence that generally links to the case that AFFs have to work through, or that AFFs get to extend through the round has been incredible.

Realistically I am looking for the stocks to be upheld, but want to make my decision based on those and what I believe will be the best policy in the round.

Last, I WILL NOT INTERFERE. I want you to enjoy the round, so read your evidence, and debate your way. Please understand everything above is what I prefer to see in a round and for me clash is the highest priority and the AFF burden to prove that policy is beneficial. Those are my two presumptions before the round ever begins so whoever meets those and proves to me the policy is net beneficial or will lead to existential harm typically is who gets my ballot.

Speed, since that is what this question is really asking...I tend to err on the side of technical over articulate, as this is an incredibly technical event, and know how much time it has taken to develop that skill.

I will warn you to watch me or my pen. If I am not flowing the round then there is a high probability that I am not following along with you and the only saving grace for you is the speech drop, file share, or email chain if there is one. Please be present in the round and observant that it could be the difference in your win or loss, simply because I could not understand your attempt at spreading.

Again this is not to say you can't, but I would for sure slow down on taglines/claims. Pop the source or card information before going full howitzer in the warrants of the evidence.

LD Debate

I am as traditional as it gets. I tend to keep a more technical-based flow. Slow pretty speaking, and thorough argumentation. I weigh heavily on the Value and Criterion clash. I love good voters at the end of the rebuttal phase. I do understand progressive argumentation but for the sake of LD, I would keep it to a minimum. Signpost well and keep off-time roadmaps brief.

Please tell me when and where I will be voting to control my flow and the ballot. If you do this, it should be a good round for you. I can not emphasize enough that CLASH is crucial and I will know if you do not interact with arguments made by you and your opponent. If you declare it as an offense and can justify this claim it could win you the round!

I am a stock issues judge, I prefer the affirmative to defend all 5 stock issues. The affirmative and the negative should both create direct clash by responding to ALL of their opponents' arguments. To me, an argument that does not have a response is an argument that is won by the team that made the argument. I do not like kritiks. Topicalities are great, but I don't like time being wasted on endless topicality arguments. Disadvantages are also a good argument, but should be formatted correctly and have all four necessary parts. CPs should have a net benefit, or they are not better than the affirmative case. On case arguments are the most effective arguments in my opinion, as long as they relate directly to the opponent's case. I will also listen to reasonable theory arguments. I do not like new in the 2, but an argument should be made for why it should not be allowed if the aff presents an argument that it should, if not I will listen to the evidence and arguments.

Style and Delivery Preferences:

I want to be able to understand every word you say. I will award higher speaker points to debaters that speak the most fluently, with the fewest mistakes, as long as I understand them.

I am a coach of all forms of speech and debate events. I competed at the high school and collegiate level in interp, speech and debate.

Debate:

I would consider myself tab with a default to policymaker. I would prefer debaters establish what I should vote on and how to weigh the round. I believe it is important for the debaters to tell me why arguments are important and why they are winning it. I will vote on anything and I will not vote on anything all at the same time. It's important for you to tell me where to vote. I do not like hearing arguments that are completely squirrel of the topic at hand (ie: scream K). Feel me to ask questions if you have concerns or questions. I would prefer speakers be slow down and be very clear on the tag lines, dates and theory arguments. Speed is fine and I can flow it. I will yell "clear" if you are not.

Speech:

Organization & Clarity with supporting documentation is key. When I am judging these events, I am looking for clear justification for the topic you chose. I am looking for you to be clear in your overall organization, but the internal thesis of your ideas need to be developed and organized also. I believe ethos, logos and pathos need to be developed and deployed each and every time you speak.

Interp:

I am looking for originality. I am looking at individuals to create clear and distinct characters. I need to see you develop strong, believable characters. Tell your story.

Clarity:

If you have questions, please feel free to ask.

Amber Flori

480 302 1202