Shoell,+Hannah

I have 7 year of policy debate experience, and I am a Head Coach at Bingham High School


 * Counterplans-** Do your thing with counterplans. So long as there's a net benefit they're all fine with me. I do prefer creative/specific counterplans to generic ones, but I would rather see a well-developed generic CP debate than a shallow but aff-specific CP debate.


 * Disad****s-** Be up-to-date on your uniqueness. If you're going to go for just a disad in the 2nr, make sure you win //at least// some case defense as well. I will vote for that kind of a 2nr.


 * Kritiks-** I love a good K (and by "good" I mean well-explained and well-debated). Explain your alternative. I am least familiar with postmodern criticisms, so those may require a little more explanation in front of me, that being said I am comfortable judging those debates.


 * K-Affs-** I love these a lot. Please run them in front of me. I'm open to whatever you want to run here. As far as the plan text/advocacy statement issue goes, I have no opinion. You want to run an aff without a text, go for it, I'll vote for it.


 * Performance-** Same as K affs. Just please run it well. Affirmative or Negative, perform your heart out. Please don't be abrasive in these debates, I've seen too many performance debates go bad, I don't care to see any more. There's nothing better than a good performance debate, and there's nothing worse than a bad performance debate.


 * Theory/T-** I don't love to vote on these, but I'll vote the way you tell me to vote. That said, in order for me to vote for theory and T, you need to win in-round abuse or that potential abuse is the absolute worst thing that has ever happened to debate.


 * Framework**
 * Negative** - I really enjoy K affs and identity affs and I generally think that they belong in debate (or at the very least they have a positive impact on debate) so framework may be uphill battle in front of me. However feel free to read it in front of me because despite my love for weird affs, I definitely see the strategic benefit of framework and I do think that it is a key part of neg ground.
 * Affirmative** - I am generally more persuaded by "weigh the aff" interps as opposed to "the squo or competitive policy option" interps. I think that the K belongs in debate. It will be very hard to get me to vote for framework against a K, but that's not to say that I won't vote for it if you win it. I think that your time is better spent substantively answering the K.

30-You sound as good as or better than Morgan Freeman, you have the eloquence of Shakespeare. You could convince the Pope that God doesn't exist. 29.5-This is the best speech I will hear at this tournament, and probably at the following one as well. 29-I expect you to get a speaker award. 28.5-You're clearly in the top third of the speakers at the tournament. 28-You're around the upper middle (ish area) 27.5-You need some work, but generally you're doing pretty well 27-You need some work 26.5-You don't know what you're doing at all 26 and lower-you've done something ethically wrong or obscenely offensive that is explained on the ballot.
 * Speaker Points Scale -** I'll do my best to adhere to the following, unless otherwise instructed by a tournament's invite:

1) starting off full speed. Unless I have judged you before, start off at around 70-80% then work your way up to however fast you want to go. 2) Being rude to your opponent. Be aggressive, be assertive, just don't be offensive or demeaning. 3) Don't argue with my decision, I'm not going to change my mind. That said, ask all the questions you want, I'm more than happy to answer them. 4) "Extinction" is not a tag.
 * Pet Peeves**

I'm fine with speed, I'll say "clear" if I need to but don't let that throw you off. Impact comparison is important in front of me. "Two ships that passed in the dark" debates are extremely frustrating to me, and impact comparison is a way to avoid that. I listen to cross-x, but I don't generally flow it, so if you want to bring up something from cross-x, reference it specifically. I prefer excellent debating over excellent evidence; I think that cards should be used to back up an argument, not as a replacement for one. On a similar note, I'm not a fan of card-dumps, but I understand their utility. I really dislike calling for cards, so I probably won't.
 * Some other stuff**

If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask me in person or email me at hannahshoell1@gmail.com