Eisenberg,+Jane

jeisenbe2861@scrippscollege.edu

Debated 3 years for Ashland High School, now a first year at Scripps College. I currently coach for CHS.

In general: I will decide the round mostly from my flow. Although I can and will call for evidence, the debater’s explanation of the argument in question will always hold the most weight in my decision. I default to an offense-defense paradigm but will buy a 0% risk argument with strong defensive arguments.

Counterplans: Probably my favorite negative argument. They most likely need to be both textually and functionally competitive in order to be persuasive. I’m probably not the best judge to run consult and conditions counterplans in front of, I usually find theoretical objections and perm: do the counterplan compelling. However, these are almost always a reason to reject the argument, not the team, so if you’re aff don’t plan on going for counterplan theory.

Disads: I love all shapes and sizes. Specific links are best. I default to evaluating link over uniqueness.

Topicality: Always an option for the negative. I will vote on the cheap shot so don’t be afraid to go for it. I’ve won rounds on plan flaw before. That being said, I prefer T violations that are well researched and specific to the aff. Unless otherwise persuaded I’ll default to competing interpretations. Impacted and well explained standards will win you the round. Please no RVIs.

Theory: Not my favorite of all arguments to listen to, but if you want it to be a viable option impacted and well explained standards are very important. I find most theoretical objections a reason to reject the argument, not the team. Conditionality is probably a good thing unless the neg is totally getting out of control with it.

Kritiks: As a very straight up debater in High School, kritiks are the most difficult for me to judge. If it’s the only thing you have or the only strategic option come the 2nr by all means go for it, but please keep in mind that I have very little if any background in the literature (one exception: cap) and as such you need to be very clear in explaining what’s going on, especially your framework and how it affects the role of the ballot.

Speaker points! Great cross x will get you great speaker points Being rude, yelling in cx, stealing prep like crazy, and being unclear will axe them.

Paperless is fine. Transition of evidence won’t be timed.