Thurston,+Rachel

School strikes: Marist Policy rounds (2012-2013): 24 PF rounds: 1 (what?) LD rounds: 2 (how is this even possible???)

About me: I did 4 years of policy debate for Marist School in Atlanta, GA. Won a decent amount of local tournaments and my biggest national success was Golden Desert Quarters (TOC bid) and tied for 23rd at NFL Nationals in 2012. In short I wasn't fantastic but I had a basic idea of what was going on. I'm now a freshman at Emory University and I'm not debating because I don't want to. I'm generally a really chill person so don't be crazy/obnoxious and I won't hate you.

Thoughts on the topic: Transportation infrastructure is a terrible idea for a debate topic. Every time I hear a round, especially if it has anything to do with High Speed Rail, I hate it a little more. But I won't take it out on you, so you're welcome. What it does mean, however, is that you need to be creative. Make the round interesting and maybe I won't be in such a crummy mood the whole time.

T/Theory - I was a 2N so I tend to err neg on a lot of theoretical debates. I'm willing to vote on legitimate arguments, but you need to slow down on this so I can flow all the details. I default to competing interpretations. You're gonna have a really difficult time convincing me to vote on something stupid, so choose better arguments. You should probably have solvency advocates, it makes the theory debate (and the rest of it) a lot easier for you to win. Conditionality is a good thing, don't abuse it.

Case - Offensive arguments are key. You will rarely see a judge vote neg solely because you're winning the defense (note: that does not mean don't read defense). Treat your turns like a separate DA (i.e. do the same impact analysis, etc.), you can't tagline extend it and expect me to vote for you. Tell me why you winning this specific case turn means the rest of their case is gone. Also, the biggest problem I tend to see with case debates is that they get super muddled. Using your basic line-by-line skills you learned freshman year solves that problem really quickly.

Ks- Like theory, this is one of the things you need to take a second and explain a little more. I'm not well versed in the literature, but if you give a rational explanation I'm willing to vote on it. Make sure you can win your framework (T-Swift, Destiny's Child, and/or Gloria Gaynor lyrics are never a good way to do that) because as a policymaker it's the first thing I'm going to look at and I'm definitely more likely to vote aff without a substantial reason to prefer your framework. Generic arguments might be an easier way to win in front of me, but please don't just read your blocks. I can tell the difference between that and actually knowing what you're saying (speaks go up for competence). This means you need to make your overview, link story, etc. specific to the round. Oh, and ontology is fantastic.

CPs- These guys are my personal favorites. Be creative, I really don't want to see the States CP (or any dumb variation of it) every round. Try your luck with an advantage CP or a funding PIC because specificity wins rounds. But please make them competitive, non-competitive counterplans make me (and your speaker points/chances of winning the round) really sad.

DA - Super fun as a net-benefit to your super specific counterplan. External impact scenarios are a must, though. You have the whole 1AC (if not the every day before the tournament) to make sure you're not reading the same impact as the aff you're hitting. If all the aff has to do is stand up and say they already solve your impact then you're not putting yourself in a good position. If you're going for DA/case, then make sure you have stuff on case. Otherwise it's gonna get super awkward when I tell you case outweighs.

K affs - Almost everything I said about Ks applies here. Remember that I'm from the Georgia circuit and have very little experience with these. My strategy against these guys was always framework and topicality (and most of the time it worked).

Performance - I'm from Georgia. //Really?//

Misc - I'm a decent flow, and I'll yell at you if I don't know what you're saying. If you're being stupid my facial expressions will tell you. Jokes are always a plus, especially to your speaks. Average speaker gets a 27.5. I'm not afraid to tank your speaks if you're mean/obnoxious. I will adjust speaks based on the tournament, but not so much that I'm handing out 29s for mediocrity. Prep stops when your jump drive leaves your computer. DO NOT steal prep or cheat in any other way (ex: clipping cards), this I'm big on. Stealing prep tanks your speaks. If you cheat, you lose. I'm not afraid to drop a team that's winning if they're clipping cards. I've been in that situation and it is in no way fair to the team you're debating or the other teams at the tournament. So I don't end my philosophy on a negative note, I'm a happy person, please do your best to keep me that way.