Stoffels,+Sabrina

I debated for Lindsay High School 2010-2014. Currently a student at the University of Texas at Austin.

Argument Content: I identify as a tab judge, but default to policy. Generally, I will listen to any well-structured argument. However, I have preferences. The majority of my experience is in policy oriented arguments so I’m not a fan of kritiks, but I will listen if it is done correctly. If you do chose to run a k please simplify and explain it thoroughly and giving ways the aff uniquely links so I know you understand what you are talking about. That being said I still prefer arguments that relate more so to the resolution. Topicalities over words like “its” “the” “should” etc. are a time suck and annoying, but warranted topicalities are a voting issue.

Theory/Framework: Make sure it is logical and warranted. If a theory/framework argument exists in more than one place on the flow be sure to address this separately from the shell of the argument. If there is no in-round justification I will default to reasonability.

Weighing: This is your job as a debater! I will not intervene and make assumptions for you. Tell me how to vote and why I should vote that way. If you don’t tell me, you risk me being forced to evaluate the round differently than you intended. Spend adequate time weighing the round and developing strategy. Quality over quantity in your arguments.

Speed: Not a huge fan of full out spreading, but I can handle speed. If you do spread, please please please be sure to make your tags clear. Communication is a huge part of debate so don’t lose that by trying to speak faster than you effectively can.

Higher speaks if you have: clear roadmaps, distinct links, neat extensions, specific impact calculus, strong CX Lower speaks if you have: whiney theory (i.e. no new in the 2), tendency to confuse humor with arrogance, messy cross-applying, numerous arguments that you haven’t told me what to do with/ why they matter

Feel free to ask me any further questions before the round. Good luck!