Wiener,+Christina

I participated in LD debate and Foreign Extemp at Reagan High School from 2009 to 2013. I am currently a freshman at the University of Texas at Austin majoring in Finance with a minor in Accounting. I met with moderate success in high school, attending TFA State all four years, and qualifying for NFL Nationals in both of my events. LD Paradigm: My LD style never strayed too far from either very far left [very kritikal] or very far right [policy oriented arguments], but I very rarely delved into meta-ethical literature/ skepticism/ the heavy theory that is prevalent in the event. I am capable of evaluating any style of debate you choose to execute in the round, provided you provide sufficient explanation and impact out a clear ballot story from whatever arguments you’re going for in the 2nr/2ar. ** Skep ** : I have a higher threshold for skep than a lot of other judges, merely proving the absence of a normative moral theory won’t win the round absent specific analysis that tells me why skep mandates a ballot in your direction and not just that we default to non-moral ways of coming to truth claims/a way of being in the world. This does not mean that I will not vote for skep, just that it will require more work on your part than a topic-specific position would. ** Plans/CP/DA: ** I think a plan is permissible on just about every LD topic as long as you justify the framework, though I’ll listen to arguments as to why plans should be excluded, it’ll be a hard battle for you to win, I rarely think any argument should be wholly excluded from the debate space. As far as the policy-making framework, just provide a framework in which your impacts matter and explain why your impacts outweigh and you should have a pretty clear path to the ballot ** Kritiks: ** undoubtedly the argument that I’m most familiar with, HOWEVER I will not reward a poorly-executed k over other arguments on the flow simply by nature of it being a k. if you’re going to read a k make sure you can explain it, your explanation will always be the most important thing. I think K’s should have an explicit alternative, though what form that takes is up to the debater reading the criticism. [The best form of kritik also has a topic-specific link, the more specific the better, please don’t read generic kritiks for the hell of it]

** Performance ** : go crazy, as long as there’s a method to your madness, I’m down. ** Theory ** : I default to theory as a question of competing interpretations, and drop the argument not the debater, though I can be persuaded otherwise on both points as long as you clearly warrant/impact out your arguments. Big picture analysis on theory is always good. Post-fiat impacts on theory can only do good for you. ** Speed ** : Go as fast as you’d like. Clarity is important, and I’ll prompt you if need be. Slow down a lot for tags and emphasize author words and key phrases. Nothing is more annoying than debaters blazing through a sheet of analytics without pausing. Additionally, nothing is more impressive than a slow, efficient debater winning the line-by-line against a fast opponent. Especially important to slow down even when reading dense philosophy because even if I am familiar with the arguments you are reading, I won’t do work for you to understand the criticism if you’re not clearly explaining it by the end of your first speech. I'll say clear twice, any more than that and I'll begin to dock speaker points. **Speaks**: If you opt to spread, clarity is crucial for high speaks. More important than how you sound is making strategic discussions in the 2AR/NR; don't go for 6 arguments if one is sufficient to win the round, don't waste time addressing all 4 levels of the debate if you're clearly winning the top 2, don't read unnecessary theory, give a strategic and efficient 1AR, don't go top speed through the 2NR if you don't have to, a slow mastery of the line-by-line is just as if not more impressive than extending every argument on the flow. If any of this is not clear enough for you, feel free to ask before rounds and I'll tell you how my speaks have been distributed at that specific tournament.

** TLDR: ** ** Things I hate/: ** - Frivolous theory ** Things I love: ** - Critical positions - Well-executed LARP positions - Strategic concessions - Impact-Calc - Giving theory external, post-fiat impacts ** Things I’ll vote on: ** - Basically anything clearly warranted, impacted and extended throughout the round (t his includes the argument on the “things I hate list”, though it will impact your speaks) ** Things I’ll never vote for: ** - Racism/Sexism/Homophobia Good [this should really be intuitive at this point] Any questions at all, ask before round, and above all, do what you’re most comfortable with, don’t just read queer theory because you think I’ll enjoy it, I’ll enjoy seeing you be good at your specialty infinitely more.