Tara Tate

University of North Texas

District 3/South Central

Rounds judged this year: 60+

Years judging: 2

Below is a breakdown of my views on important issues that may come up

in your round. It should be noted that I try to evaluate each argument

with fairness and how the debate is played out on the flow.

Topicality -- typically I do not care for Topicality debates. This is

primarily due to sloppiness of the debate. I have noticed, however,

that excellent T debaters will not have difficulty picking up my

ballot. In order to win Topicality, however, you must spend a great

deal of time discussing the abuse/ground lost in the round.

Counterplans -- not much to say here. I typically think the rounds are

usually better when counterplans are in them. I will say that I

typically default Negative on counterplan theory. I typically think

that PICs are fine as well as dispositional counterplans. Of course,

this does not mean I won't vote on the argument. To win these

arguments, there needs to be in-depth discussion on ground loss and

equity of the playing field.

Critical arguments -- these are okay with me as well. The implications

of the argument need to be explained well. Multiple SPECIFIC link

stories are a good thing. I much prefer critique debates in which the

link(s) is explained as per the 1AC. Don't just say that the plan

entrenches capitalism…give me specific warrants why.

Disadvantages -- you have got to win uniqueness. This also pertains to

the Affirmative. Your link turns on Clinton don't mean much absent

winning uniqueness on the specific Clinton scenario. With a

counterplan in the round that solves for most of the case, Affirmatives

need to win offense on the net benefit.

Performative contradictions -- I am a big believer in Negation theory

(probably why it is hard for me to vote Affirmative on counterplan

theory). I am typically more persuaded by Negative arguments on why

they can run contradictory arguments than the Affirmative. If the 2NR

chooses to collapse down to contradictory issues, then she/he deserves

to lose the round any way. I think it is fine, generally, for the 1NC

to run a counterplan with a net-benefit, a disad that links to the

counterplan, and a critique that links to the counterplan. They have

the option of picking and choosing what arguments to go for in the

round. I also believe that the critique works on a different level

than the counterplan.

Other things: speed is fine. Assertive behavior is fine…rudeness is

not -- this includes treatment of your partner. Please refrain from

using sexist language. Do not clip cards. A good way to beef up your

speaker points is a strategic cross-examination. Humor is typically a