Kreus,+Erin

Erin Kreus Experience: Junior at Wheeler High School I have mostly debated policy-style arguments.

1. Respect is a prerequisite to debate. 2. Types of Arguments:  -Framework: I am not a policy maker. I believe that Debate should be about critical and policy options.  -Theory: Conditionality probably isn't a voter unless they read more than two conditional advocacies. I'm not a fan of cheap-shot theory arguments but if they have an impact and the other team drops them, they might be a viable option.  -Topicality: Be technical.  -Disads: Uniqueness controls the direction of the link.  -Risk: You have to win a decent risk of solvency for me to be persuaded by try or die.  -Kritiks: Don't assume I know the jargon. The link debate will be very important, make sure that you explain how the kritik interacts with the Affirmative.  -Counterplans: Make sure you explain CP solvency. I tend to lean affirmative on theory for conditions/consult/etc. style counterplans.  -Evidence: You don't need a card to say everything. If you make smart, well-warranted analytical arguments, I will compare them equally to evidence. 3. Debate is not just about individual flows; it is about the interaction between those flows. 4. Flashing is Prep. 5. I believe debate is a pedagogical activity and as a result, I am more persuaded by education claims over fairness. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">6. Debate is a communicative activity. If you are not clear, I will yell, "clear." If there is no attempt to become clearer after 3 times, I will not be able to flow properly. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">7. Flow. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">**Note: These are my predispositions and I will do my best to evaluate the debate as fairly as possible, but I believe that it is unfair as a judge to pretend that I have no predispositions.