Jurlina,+Anna

Anna Jurlina (UCF)

Bio  I am finishing my first year debating policy at UCF where I have competed in Novice and JV policy debate.

Please add me to the speech doc: annajurlina@gmail.com

Overview  In Debate, both sides need to have an advocacy. Therefore, each side should try to explain why their method is best, what the world will be like if I vote for them, and why that world would be better than that of the opposition.  Impact calculus in final speeches is key in order to evaluate holistically why your side is winning. You may not like the way I vote if you just reassert your impacts without comparing them and explaining why your impacts win on magnitude, time frame, or probability.

Ks:  I am not very familiar with current literature and it would be wise to explain your position clearly to me because if I do not understand it, then I cannot vote on it. The weakest part of a K is generally the Alt. Therefore, even if the Alt is not questioned, you should spend some time explaining why your method or advocacy will be best able to solve.  Also, when on the Neg there should be a direct link to the Aff rather than a link of omission. Be careful with kritiks that are based off of advantages rather than the plan text. If you run them don’t contradict yourself. If you say rhetoric is important and then use that same bad rhetoric, it will be hard for you to win. I will vote for perf con if it is presented properly and it is clear why it harms the debate.

Topicality/ Framework:  I do believe that topicality is a voting issue if executed properly. Specific examples of what cases would be/won’t be allowed under an interpretation are important. It is always a good idea to bring up a TVA on the Neg. So that you can prove the Aff could achieve the same goals under the topic. Overall, the violation needs to prove that the opposing team hurt education. Why is the strategy that the Aff is taking preventing you from learning in the round? To me, fairness is almost never a voting issue because life is not fair.

Counterplans:  Counterplans need to feasible. Saying that the 50 states should do the plan instead needs to have some solvency. I will not fiat that all 50 states will do this simultaneously without some plan or solvency mechanism. Do not present three different counterplans that cannot coexist without picking to advocate for one in the end. Make it clear what your end advocacy is. Overall, condo is good so long as the Neg picks a final strategy by the 2NR and does not go for all the counterplans in the last speech.

Disads:  Disads should not be read with a bunch of nuclear war scenarios. I will only vote for them if the opposing side has no impact defense. I prefer to vote on anything other than extinction scenarios. I find it hard to believe that the extinction of humankind is going to happen because of one policy enacted by the USFG. Consider what impacts of economic decline are rather than nuclear war. This is not to say that you cannot have those impacts, but be ready to explain the probability and timeframe. Do not assume you will win on magnitude alone.

<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;;">Neg Strategies: <span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;;"> I am open to all kinds of arguments. I may vote on a good perf con or condo bad arg. However, the majority of the time I do believe that conditionality is good.

<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;;">Evidence: <span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;;"> It is important for both sides to not only read competing evidence, i.e. single payer will/will not tank the economy, but also to explain why to prefer their evidence. Evidence quality is more important than quantity.

<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;;">Speaker Points: <span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;;"> In order to get good speaks in front of me it is best to not be rude to someone due to lack of knowledge or experience. Although I do appreciate sarcasm during speeches, there is a line between rude and sarcastic. <span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;;"> Please do not be monotone, especially in the rebuttals, this is a persuasive activity and I am not persuaded when you stare at a computer screen with no emphasis on what is important. <span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;;"> Although CX can get heated, it is important to remember that logic pokes holes in arguments, not volume.