Brandt,+Caroline

Version:1.0 StartHTML:0000000189 EndHTML:0000004844 StartFragment:0000002381 EndFragment:0000004808 SourceURL:file://localhost/Users/carolinebrandt/Desktop/NDT%20/juding%20theory.doc Caroline Brandt

The important stuff: I debated for the last four years at Dartmouth. I have very limited experience in the areas of 1) judging 2) this topic. If you read your prewritten analytics like theyre cards, I will not get them down. If you aren’t louder/clearer/slower on the tags, I will not get them down. Debate whatever you want in front of me. I have a general threshold for reasonability in arguments. Qualifications, especially in specialized areas, are important to me. I think I give more weight to strong smart defensive arguments than most people.

T – Ken was my coach and I’m convinced – T is about limits. Because I am not familiar with this topic, keeping things clear and simple will probably benefit you. Framework should be a T question.

Theory - One conditional cp/k is good. Two is okay. Three and we might have a problem. I sway more aff than most people on counterplan theory for things like consult, delay, multi actor fiat etc. I can clearly be persuaded otherwise, but these are my biases. I usually think theory is a reason to reject the argument.

K – I'll probably agree with your link and impact and think your alt is nonsensical. I am very persuaded by basic aff presses like - how do we ever get to make policy decisions?

I also would rather hear an impact story that is lower in magnitude than one I can’t tie mentally together like “destroying subjectivity leads to extinction.”

Speaker points: I think we’re a community. Every member of this community deserves respect (rather perhaps correlating respect with skill level). Being snarky occasionally to emphasize a point is fine. Unnecessary rudeness will seriously hurt your speaker points. If your performance includes yelling at or antagonism I may not be the judge for you.