DeFoor,+Kaitlin

 Kaitlin DeFoor Experience 3.5 years Samford University

I tend to default to a policy making paradigm.

Topicality: I think affs should be topical. I have a high threshold for voting on T and I tend to err aff on reasonability. If you want to win a T debate you need to point out specifically why the aff is abusive and makes debate worse.

Theory: I think 2 condo advocacies are fine. I consider myself to have a high threshold for voting on most theory arguments. I’d rather hear a substantive debate.

Counterplans and DA: The majority of the time the neg should have a CP in the debate. I’m open to PICS and advantage CPs. I’m less open to Conditional plank CPs, Consult CPs, and CPs that compete of certainty of the plan.

Kritiks: I’d prefer to hear a good CP/DA debate, but this doesn’t mean I won’t vote on a well run K. I think you need specific reasons why the alternative solves/ turns the case. As previously stated, I default to a policy making paradigm, so make sure you spend enough time on the framework debate. I’d also rather hear a topic specific K than a generic.

Last Thoughts: Be nice in the round. If you’re not, your speaks will reflect it. 