Lee,+Tammy

Lee, Tammy

I have a stock issues paradigm. I do get annoyed by Neg teams that constantly want to harp on tiny, technical topicality issues, however. If you believe you have a real topicality argument, make it and move on. If the Aff team drops DAs that usually doesn't bode well for them with me.

I tend to judge Aff teams on a solid plan with good cited evidence to back them up. The more recent the evidence, the better. I want to hear the author, credentials (if appropriate), the specific date (month, day, year) and how their evidence fits the plan presented. Aff teams need to have a clearly mapped argument about inherency, solvency and significance (harms) of the status quo.

Neg teams need to attack the Aff team's plan using equally specific reference citations. Neg teams should present DAs in a logical order and a counter plan if it is well thought out. Neg teams should also attack the harms brought up in the Aff team argument. Be clear about why the status quo is acceptable and the Aff plan is not.

I tend to vote for the team who presents a more persuasive, logical, well supported argument. My personal feelings on the topic are not relevant.

I am not big on theoretical arguments.

I do not favor the fast debate style. I want arguments to be laid out in a normal conversational speed.

The 2NC can bring up new arguments if they are at least hinted at in the 1NC.

Debaters and the audience in the room need to be respectful of those speaking. No cell phones are to be used during the debate. Debaters may use a watch or timer if they would like to keep their own time, but I am the official time keeper. Team members should refrain from prompting or helping their partner while they are speaking. Use prep time for this.