Kapustina,+Stacy

Stacy Kapustina Glenbrook South ’09, Loyola Chicago ’13, judge for University of Chicago Lab School

Above all else, go for what you’re good at and debate the way you want. That said, here are a few of my predispositions:

-Please do not sacrifice clarity for speed. I make no apologies for missing arguments that were uttered incoherently. I find myself docking speaker points for lack of clarity more often than anything else.

-Take advantage of cross-ex time, it’s important. Use the time to impress/persuade me and your speaker points will definitely reflect that. Humor is a huge plus!

- KRITIKS: I prefer policy debates to Kritik debates 100% of the time, but if Kritiks are what you’re best at you should go for them. Keep in mind, however, that I am not that familiar with the literature and that a lot of the usual jargon means nothing to me, so you will have to spend more time developing your arguments than if you were to go for a policy strategy. Also, just because you are running a Kritik does NOT mean you can do without specific links, turns case arguments, and impact calculus. Even the smartest of Kritik teams seem to forget this. (FRAMEWORK: affs need to have a topical plan. On everything else, I can be persuaded either way).

-TOPICALITY: Fine.

-THEORY: Also fine, but I should warn you that I was a 2N throughout my debate experience and my biases reflect that: dispositionality is definitely good, conditionality is almost always good, PICs are also good, etc. I can be convinced otherwise, but it will take lots of work on your part. Also, I reject the argument not the team, and persuading me to do otherwise is an uphill battle.

-Dropped arguments are true arguments.