Jaret,+Amanda

Though I will be as objective as possible, I come with certain experiences and expectations and think debate is something more than just a game. I think it teaches important advocacy skills and has a pedagogical and communicative value. That being said, I want to see you running arguments you are comfortable with and that you enjoy. I do have a few general preferences.


 * Topicality/ Theory**: I probably give affirmatives a bit more credit than most. I think that engaging the resolution in some way is crucial, but as long as you defend yourself well I am open-minded about what that looks like. That said, if you are running topicality, I will listen to your arguments and vote for you if you are careful on the line by line and make sure you impact your claims. How has the affirmative denied you ground or limited your education in this debate? I find these questions really interesting and, with examples of in-round abuse, compelling reasons to pull the trigger. Same goes for theory.


 * Disads**: Excellent. Make sure you are clear about internal links. Just saying "econ collapse causes nuclear war" may not be super persuasive to me. I want a story, especially if you have a complicated politics scenario. And of course, good impact calculus is always delicious.


 * Counter-plans**: Also fine with me. I will listen to any kind of counter-plan but will also evaluate theoretical objections to your counter-plans. If you run a consult CP or an agent/ delay/ multi-actor CP, I think that usually gives the aff more leeway for more "abusive" perms. If your counter-plan solves your disad and/ or has other external net-benefits to the case, even better.


 * Kritiks**: I have read a lot of the literature and will be familiar with many of your authors. Still, I think that clear explanations are key. Act as if I don't understand already. I like to see good link work and an articulation of external impacts. If you have an alternative, I want to understand how it functions and why it matters. Buzzwords and jargon should be explained really well or avoided.


 * Case** : I really love case debate. I think too many negative teams ignore substantive questions about the inner workings of plans. In my view, that lets affirmatives get away with a lot more than they probably should in too many instances.


 * Framework**: Depending on your interpretation of framework, voting on these arguments will probably be a tougher sell for me. I think that one of the most valuable aspects of debate is exposure to a wide array of different kinds of arguments, and convincing me of any interpretation that would exclude a decent percentage of voices (like saying kritiks should always be excluded or that the neg must present a competitive policy option) will be an uphill battle.


 * Performance/ Other Arguments**: Performance is fine with me, but explain what yours means (or why it doesn't mean anything and how that's good). I don't think that answering performance with nothing but framework is your best strategy. I'll also evaluate just about any kind of impact turn if you explain it. If econ collapse or nuke war is good, explain why. Caldwell, wipeout, aliens, animals, zombies? I'll listen to it all. I will almost definitely not vote on arguments like racism/ patriarchy good, anything explicitly homophobic, and anything that trivializes rape.


 * Speed**: Not a problem. I think my flow is pretty good. I'd just ask that you slow down on tags a little. Don't sacrifice clarity for speed.


 * Final Thoughts**: I'll evaluate the debate however you ask me to, but make sure you tell me what paradigm I should be using. Contextualizing the role of my ballot is important in the 2NR/ 2AR. I don't want to have to call for evidence or intervene in making my decision, so do what it takes for me to not have to do that! Be considerate, be passionate, have pizzazz, keep things fun and organized, and your speaker points will reflect my delight!