Jiang,+Mary

I am a third year 2N at Johns Creek. I'm pretty opinionated about some arguments, but I'll try to evaluate the debate objectively, so you should run whatever you're most comfortable with. This does come with a caveat: I won't evaluate offensive arguments, and your speaks will be docked heavily. I default to tech > truth - a dropped argument is most likely a true argument, and you'll probably have a hard time convincing me otherwise.

Be clear and contextualize your arguments rather than read off of blocks pls. I'll probably try to do the least amount of work possible. Clarity > speed is rly important, too. Similarly, I am not a good flow, so you should slow down, especially when you're reading convoluted kritik blocks, theory arguments, etc.

I like disads. The direction of the link controls uniqueness. Explain your impact and how it implicates the rest of the debate, but recognize that uq/internal link defense are sufficient to mitigate a risk of the disad. With that being said, I think there can be a 0% risk of the disad. Also, politics = <3
 * Disads** -

I'm probably not the best judge for long, technical topicality debates. You need to slow down when you are reading a fifteen subpoint overview (!!!). T should be impacted like a disad with a central question focusing on whose interpretation produces the best model of debate. Case lists are important, and a topical version of the aff is preferable when the debate necessitates it.
 * Topicality** -

Case debates are cool. Winning a minimal risk of case is a good strategy, no matter what you're going for. Most debates are generally reduced to impact defense in the later rebuttals.
 * Case** -

All right, although I have to admit I've only ever gone for them in 5% of my 2NRs. I'm only familiar with generics (e.g. DnG, Baudrillard, Bataille, etc.) and some race-based arguments. Incomprehensible jargon is frustrating to listen to because if I can't explain the thesis of your kritik by the end of the debate, I most likely will not vote for you. Likewise, random k tricks are annoying, and I am much more sympathetic to the affirmative. Specificity is important. Framework isn't usually contested that much, so the aff usually gets to weigh case.
 * Kritiks** -

Be cognizant of your position. I have a general dislike for the commodification of identity politics although there is no brightline to draw on to determine what is and is not appropriate, which may seem arbitrarily carved out.

Agent counterplans are probably legit. Process counterplans are probably not. Treat counterplan solvency as a question of risk and not necessarily as "yes or no." Affs should impact solvency deficits and tell me how to weigh them against the net benefit. To give an idea of my preferences as a 2N, the majority of my 2NRs have been CP + disad or disad + case.
 * Counterplans** -

I am not the best judge for these debates. Affs should defend their advocacies and not be shifty. I am aff-leaning on framework, but that doesn't mean that affs can disregard arguments with pathos alone. Technical framework debates are preferable, and a lot of explanation is necessary.
 * Critical Affs/Framework** -

- fun is good!!11!!1 looking #ded in round reflects poorly on your ethos - My favorite argument is death gud pls run it - Show me your flows at the end of the round. If they're good, I'll give you an extra 0.2 speaks. - I'lll see if I take prep for flashing that round by a coin flip
 * Misc.** -