Moczulski,Leah

I debated 4 years at The Woodlands High School in The Woodlands Texas and I'm a senior on the Gonzaga debate team. Speed is fine. Tag Team CX is fine. I think debate is most educational when debaters are having fun so be nice and respectful to your opponents and your partner.

I taught a lab at the GDI this summer, but since then I have judged few high school debates – so if you have a lot of nuances in your aff make sure to explain them at least once. I'm not super familiar with the way the topic has evolved since summer.

I default to a policy making paradigm but I can be persuaded otherwise. I think that the aff normally has to defend a topical plan and that the negative should refute the validity of that plan.

Argument issues:

Topicality – I think topicality is a voting issue, I normally default to a competing interpretations paradigm on T, but I can be persuaded otherwise. I think that in order to win a topicality debate you should avoid the pitfalls of being repetitive and debate topicality like a DA. Weigh the impacts and compare them. Otherwise, I'm likely to have to resolve a debate with no terminal impact – which will leave the negative in a precarious position.

CP/DA Strategy – Yes, please. I prefer the DA and a good specific counterplan more than anything. I'll reward you for a good and creative strategy. That is not to say that your generics aren't good too – just do good impact analysis. On theory issues I think PICs are good, and conditionality is good. However, I'll listen to affirmative arguments against this and have often voted on conditionality/PICs bad.

K – I am not as familiar with this literature, that does not mean you can't run the K just I'll hold you to a higher level of explanation. I think you need to articulate an alternative and often times I think this is where the affirmative misses the boat when answering the K. Do good impact analysis and alternative explanation.

Questions? Ask me before the debate.

Have fun.