Timmons,+Christine

Christine Timmons Binghamton University 3 years college debate experience

I'm a pre-med sophomore @ Binghamton, don't have any ideological leanings established --- if you win it, you win it. I see my role as being to invest the least amount of intervention in the round possible and will try to evaluate the round that way as best I can.

T - go nuts. spec args as a subset of this are often a minute of my life i'll never get back, and that irks me, but that doesn't mean you can't go for a cheap shot in front of me. I tend to err towards reasonability, and think limits on the topic makes a lot more sense than standards that wax poetic about the politics ground you lost. This doesn't mean you can't guide me towards evaluating the debate solely through competing interpretations. I haven't done much research on this topic so be sure to be contextualizing your interpretation for me and your impacts and we'll be golden.

Kritiks --- most of my experience here revolves around levinasian and derridean ethics, but if you're able to give a short plot for your link and impact analysis, i'll keep up without a problem. Just don't assume I'm as invested in your literature as you are. Contextualization against the aff? awesome. Links of omission? not as awesome, but persuade me. These debates often come down to the perm debate and contextualization of the alternative, so if you can frontload this analysis for me in the block or the 2AC for me along with some smart link arguments and/or link turns if you're answering the K, it'll help your cause immensely. Framework debates on these questions are also great -- I'll be especially thrilled if you can compartmentalize these kinds of debates for me instead of just shoving them at the bottom or top of your K flow :-)

Theory -- though i'd rather steal happiness from the orphanage than hear blippy theory arguments, i'm open to these as a way out against goopy K's or more abusive strategies like multiple conditional cp's in the block. it's easiest for me to view these debates as a matter of competing interpretations of theoretical legitimacy than blanket statements about the evils of one conditional advocacy.

disads, counterplans, deep case debates --- excellent. Fair warning, I haven't done much judging on the high school topic so a little bit more explanation will definitely put you ahead in an intricate case debate.

I like an easy way out, and I don't like doing work for either team, so try not to make my decision too difficult. =)

Any questions, ask me!