Givan,+Elsa

**Elsa Givan**
College Preparatory School Georgetown University

- I was both a 2A and a 2N in high school. - I will work hard to be as objective as possible and evaluate tech over truth unless told otherwise. - Specificity and effort are rewarded in my book. If it’s clear you’ve done the research and have extensive knowledge of the topic, I will boost your points accordingly. - Framing the debate is key – the 2NR and 2AR should aim to write my ballot. - I’d prefer you read enough of your evidence to make a complete argument, so if you’re going to highlight two lines of a card and call it an internal link then it’s probably not worth reading at all. Evidence = claim and warrant (same goes for arguments). - Please be clear - if you aren’t, I’ll yell it a few times but eventually I will give up. I’m a pretty expressive person so look up every now and then - if I’m obviously frustrated, you should change something. - Debate is fun – act like it! Be nice and have a good sense of humor. - Feel free to ask me questions before the debate if I haven’t covered something or you’d like clarification.
 * A few quick things:**


 * Paperless**: Prep time ends when the flash drive leaves your computer. If your computer crashes, we’ll stop prep.

Topicality: Topicality needs to be substantively developed for me to vote on it. Please do not be incomprehensibly fast on T in the 2AC, because I will sympathize with the negative if there are missed arguments. Remember to impact your interpretation.


 * Theory**: Theory must be well developed and impacted, like topicality. I am more sympathetic to some theory arguments than others. Winning conditionality requires substantial time investment in both the 1AR and the 2AR. I find other theoretical objections such as international fiat, 50 state fiat, conditions/consult/process theory, etc. to be much more persuasive.


 * Case**: I really like a good case debate. The 2AC and 1AR need to be clear and warranted on case. I’d prefer if the negative collapsed an extensive case debate from the block into a few winnable arguments in the 2NR instead of going for everything.


 * Counterplans**: I’m a huge fan of a case specific counterplan (especially PICs), so the more specific you get, the better your points/chances will be. Conversely, I’m not a huge fan of process/delay (and consult if it’s hypergeneric) counterplans because I don’t think they’re competitive. I will be persuaded by perm do the CP and theory arguments by the aff. A generic counterplan is certainly winnable in front of me, but I’d prefer something more specific.


 * Disadvantages**: I am a strong believer in credible defense. If the aff can point out logical problems with the disad, I will reduce the risk substantially (even if it’s not a carded argument). There can be zero risk of a disad. Clear articulation of the link in the context of the aff is essential. I think that carded arguments about how the disad turns/solves the case are persuasive.

Framework is important and underutilized on both sides – it can get you farther on every other part of the flow. I don’t mean framework as in “no Ks”, I mean framework as in an interpretation of the judge/ballot and what the focus of the debate should be about (i.e. policymaking, ontology, scholarship, etc.).
 * Kritiks**: I understand most IR-based K’s well. Anything else is going to take a high level of explanation and work to get my ballot.

**For the aff** – defend your 1AC! Know who your authors are. Have cards that defend the studies of your authors and the method they used. Know what method they used! I prefer a well-developed impact turn debate to a permutation debate, but do what you gotta do.

**For the neg** - link debate is very important, and contextualizing it within the aff is even more crucial. Question the scholarship of their authors and press them on internal links and logical take-outs in cross-ex – I think the best way to get mileage on the K is to have credible defense against the aff because it proves their epistemology is fundamentally bankrupt.


 * Performance/K Affs**: I very little experience being in performance debates, let alone judging them. That being said, I am very interested in hearing new arguments. I will make a concerted effort this year to watch as many debates as I can that are different from what I’ve seen before when I’m not judging. However, because I do lack experience with performance affs, you must be very clear about what the role of the ballot is and how I should evaluate the debate. Also, I’m inclined to agree with Brian Manuel that you must defend //something//, even if you’re not defending the topic. Your position must be debatable. While I will vote on framework, I prefer a case turn debate, a PIC, or a K. Understandably, a specific strategy is not always possible when debating an aff that doesn’t defend the topic, and framework may sometimes be your best option.