Hopewell,+Audrey

I debated 4 years at Iowa City West High and am currently a freshman at the University of Oklahoma (I don’t debate there). In high school, I was a 2A for 3 years and a 2N my senior year.
 * Background **

A word of warning - I haven’t judged on the surveillance topic and so I’m not super-familiar with the arguments being read. In other words, don’t recite some ridiculous obscure 10+ letter acronym to me and expect that I know what it means. Other than that, you’re safe assuming I know enough about surveillance to understand what you’re saying.

The following is my default way of thinking about debate. If you want me to evaluate the round some other way, argue it well and I will. I’ll evaluate the debate in a tech over truth framework. This means that a dropped arg=true, even if I know it to be false (you still have to explain why that dropped arg means I should vote for you, though). That being said, if an argument is blatantly false, it doesn’t take much to answer it and I’ll be annoyed if I have to vote on some dropped piece of ev that is obviously untrue. Please impact your arguments and notice the interactions between flows. Basically, your 2NR/2AR should write my RFD for me. In addition to possibly winning you the debate, this will get you higher speaker points AND I will feel warm and fuzzy inside. I’ll only call cards if what the evidence actually says is contested or if the debate is so confusing that I have literally no idea how to decide. Other than that, it’s up to you and not your ev to do the debating.
 * General overview **

I love a great case debate! So many debaters seem to think it’s a good strategy to have like 6 random DAs and spend 30 seconds on case, but focusing on clever case turns or even really solid defense is probably a better use of time than that fourth DA that both debaters and the judge know will be gone by the block.
 * Case **

I’m more willing to vote on the K than you might assume given my background. This being said, don’t just read a bunch of philosophy + one random card that says the topic area links and expect me to vote for you. Explain how the K links to and turns the aff specifically. I’m not an expert in critical lit by any means but if you’re explaining it well enough to deserve the ballot then you’re explaining it well enough for me to understand.
 * Kritiks **

I always read a plan in HS, but I'm definitely open to voting for non-policy/non-plan affs - you do you. Since I'm probably not very familiar with the nuances of the lit your aff is based in, make sure that you're explaining what arguments are instead of expecting me to know what some obscure philosophical term means. I find identity affs far more persuasive than high theory affs, though I'm not opposed to voting for the latter. Framework is definitely a viable option for the neg, but I don’t think the neg can just read their generic block and be good to go. So many of the arguments in the 1AC are probably specific answers to generic neg args, so if you go the framework route the neg should try to actually debate the substance of the aff. I’m probably not the best judge for a K vs. K debate because of my lack of familiarity with the lit, but I don’t have any ideological objection to these arguments.
 * “Non-traditional” affs **

Not much to say here. I read a lot of politics in HS so I’m obviously down for generic DAs as well as specific. An aff-specific link will help you a lot.
 * DAs **

Counterplans always have to have a net benefit. I love an aff- or topic-specific CP. I read process counterplans in HS as a 2N but I’m pretty convinced they (and delay CPs, etc.) are cheating, so I have a low threshold for voting these down on theory. Conditional counterplans are probably fine, but more than two condo options (a CP and K) is pushing it.
 * CPs **

See my opinions on conditionality in the CP section. Not a huge fan of theory debates in general, but I think that’s probably because they’re usually blippy and heavily blocked-out. If you can avoid that, go for it. I’m far more likely to vote on theory if you make arguments about actual in-round abuse.
 * Theory **

The same objections I have for theory apply here (blippiness, general lack of impacts) but I’ll vote on T if well-argued and if your impacts are coherent. I default to competing interpretations, mostly because I have yet to hear reasonability argued in a way that makes sense as a better model for debate. This doesn't mean I won't vote on reasonability; my decision will be based on whoever wins the reasonability vs. competing interps debate in the round.
 * Topicality **