Emerson,+Stephanie

I debated nationally for four years at Coppell High School from 2009-2013. I don't debate in college.

In general: I'm more policy oriented, I very strongly prefer that you read a plan (which is at least arguably topical) and I'd rather listen to DAs/CPs than crazy Ks but I will never vote you down solely because of the arguments that you read, just know that you'll have to do extra work depending on your strat. Additionally, I'm not particularly familiar with the topic, meaning you should avoid using specific acronyms, etc.

T: I'm not set on either reasonability or competing interpretations yet. I feel that I tend to lean towards reasonability when it's actually explained properly, which is to say that you argue if their definition of the topic is reasonable, not if their plan is reasonably close to the topic. My best advise is that you read T like a DA, and just like for a DA, you need a link and impact, which is to say if you're going for T you should actually have a reason why they're outside of the topic and why that has significant ramifications.

DA: My favorite argument. Just like pretty much every judge, I'd prefer that you read more specific arguments but I understand that it's not possible to predict every aff and politics can be really handy. The most important thing is to actually logically connect the steps of your argument. Saying that a plan is unpopular does not automatically mean that some other bill won't pass, you need to explain the internal link. Also, for impact calc be more specific than just saying that your impact happens faster, is bigger, and is more probably than theirs - tell me why.

CP: I also like. I go back and forth regarding where I set the line of what's too sketchy. Just know that if your CP is questionable you're going to need the theory blocks to defend it. That being said, if at all possible I'd much rather judge a debate over substance rather than theory so for the neg, if you have a less abusive CP that solves just as well I'd lean towards that option, and to the aff, don't use theory as a cop out, I'm not saying don't run it, but don't forget to point out logical arguments. If you make a compelling enough case I'm willing to vote on analytics over sketchy or poorly explained evidence. Also, I think CP theory is normally a reason to reject the argument not the team, especially if they don't go for it.

Condo: I'm definitely pro. I think up to two options is cool, three is rather borderline, four or more is pretty damn sketchy. Aff, you can read it but unless the neg drops or severely mishandles it I probably won't vote on it (except in those sketchy instances). Combining multiple theory args, like conditional process cp bad, is a good way to make your argument stronger.

K: The basics like security or cap are definitely fine. The farther left you go the more work you're going to have to do. I generally would prefer to not listen to arguments like politics is dead or nothing matters so we should do nothing, the increasing tendency to reject the policy sphere is one of the major reasons I've chosen not to continue debate in college. But again, like I said at the beginning, I'll still evaluate these arguments, you'll just have to do more work. Don't forget to actually explain the link thoroughly, don't just assume that the plan is capitalist, anthropocentric, etc. Also, explain specifically how the K turns the aff or solves it's impacts and actually extrapolate on how the alt solves (or why it doesn't matter if it does).

Case: Impact turns are basically DA where the link and uniqueness is given to you so they're pretty awesome. I'm also a big supporter of always reading case defense, it doesn't matter what your strategy is, being able to mitigate the aff's solvency is helpful. I believe there can be zero risk of an adv (or DA for that matter) or at least an incredibly small probability of it so don't underestimate good case args.