Becky Opsata
University of Southern California
Rounds on topic: 50+

I like to think that I am open to all types of argumentation. In the past, I have voted on many types of arguments. I do, however, have some standards that I believe all arguments need to meet. First, they must have both evidence and a warrant to support the claim. If your arguments don't meet that simple standard, I will feel free to disregard them.
In terms of critiques: in the abstract, I would think that I would be rather pro-critique, but in the reality of this year's topic, it has been relatively rare that I have voted on them. The reasons that I have not voted on many critiques this year are 1) the team didn't articulate what exactly my role was in terms of the critique (i.e. what does the ballot mean.) 2) The team assumed that I would just fill in the blanks on the impact of a critique (i.e. they assumed that I would assume that in round discourse is important, such that the team didn't bother to say or impact the claim. I guess it goes back to the evidence/warrant thing I mentioned in the first paragraph). OR 3) the critique didn't meet some minimal standard (i.e. it didn't have a link).
In terms of procedurals: although determining agent specification or topicality is not the most fun a debate judge can have, I am not averse to that type of argumentation. However, I need more justification than "it hurts our ground." I don't really know what that means in a vacuum.
In terms of substantive issues: I think I am a rather straightforward judge who
will weigh out the impacts at the end of the round. I would never claim to be an expert on advanced counter-plan theory, although I think I get the intermediate counter-plan theory pretty well.
In terms of style and form issues: do what makes you happiest, not a stickler for arbitrary rules of proper decorum. Don't be mean to the other team, but after that, I am flexible.


Any questions beyond these limited comments, I would be happy to answer.

Back