Grossman,+Lena

**michigan state '20** **include me on the email chain (lenagrossman6@gmail.com)** **glenbrooks update: this will be the first tournament i've judged since camp, so be mindful that my topic knowledge/community norm awareness is limited. i assess the risk of any given claim based on the strength of its supporting evidence and warrants. claims that are supported by low quality evidence/warrants will be assigned low probability even if they are dropped. to reiterate, arguments do not start at 100%. they are built from zero and presumed to be zero risk until they are PROVEN more probable. you've been warned. the role of the judge is to assess the desirability of plan implementation. if the k does not prove the implementation of the plan is undesirable, it is not a reason to vote neg. to win within this framework, the alt must generate uniqueness for the k's impacts. i will not entertain frameworks that shift the question of the debate away from the desirability of the plan. in order to get my ballot, the aff should defend the hypothetical enactment of a topical plan. if the neg goes for limits, clash, argument testing type standards and NOT topic education, i will have great difficulty voting aff. i will punish the negative for re-reading their block in the 2nr if the 1ar extends conditionality and the 2ar is answering their arguments. however, i will not vote aff unless there is in depth explanation in the 2ar tied to all previous speeches. i am a pretty tough sell on rejecting the team on theory other than conditionality. judge kick is a tough sell to say the least. if the neg says it in the 2nr and the aff reacts (or if everyone is silent), i will almost certainly stick the neg with the cp. not a big fan of voting against core of the topic affs. in the context of limits, reasonability makes sense to me in that the aff should only lose if they explode the topic, not if the neg's interp is slightly more limiting. the neg should focus on establishing a large link to limits rather than trying to win competing interps are best or that reasonability causes judge intervention.
 * top level - must-read**
 * regarding the kritik**
 * theory-**
 * topicality-**