LaBounty,+Emma


 * Affiliations: ** University School of Nashville (debater, grad ‘11), King College Prep in the Chicago Debate League (coach, 2011-2014), RTC Medical Prep in the CDL (2014 to present)

**History:** I’m a fourth-year at the University of Chicago. I debated for four years in high school at University School of Nashville, and qualified to the TOC (and NFL's). For the past four years, I have judged regularly in the CDL and occasionally on the national circuit, but have not judged much yet this year (only about 8 rounds in the CDL).

**Policy v. critical:** I wouldn't be particularly worried about me being predisposed against you unless you're off-the-wall critical (like, Burroughs cut-ups critical, not the project critical). In terms of my debate life, I typically went for policy arguments in high school. In terms of my academic and political life, I'm also familiar with and friendly to critical literature, particularly that pertaining to social, economic, and racial injustice: anti-capitalist, feminist, anti-racist, etc.


 * The bottom line: ** I prefer evidence and solid, consistent argumentation to trickiness and cheap shots. Good isolation of and comparison between impacts wins rounds. I probably lean slightly aff on theory except for condo. I'm not going to automatically vote down anything. Also, p eople should stay on the line-by-line, and I think speed bad is a sort of a bad argument.

More specific thoughts on how I see stuff as working...

**T and theory.** T and theory have impacts: they're fairness and education. They have internal links: they're ground, limits, neg flex, etc. Spell these out clearly, and these can be good debates. I am amenable to reasonability, but it obviously needs to be very well-argued. If you're going for theory, actually go for theory (not 30 seconds in your rebuttal [unless they dropped it]), not a cheap shot. Reject the argument, not the team is a good argument on most things (except for condo). Don't read T for the sake of reading T. I am not familiar with the norms that have been set in terms of topicality on the national circuit on oceans, so you should make sure to spell it out for me. CP theory comments in the CP section.

**Disads.** I love a good disad debate. I like good politics disads and good plan-specific disads. Aff teams should leverage a wide array of arguments, and I will respect if you have a smart, well-tailored, tricky 2AC: predictive uniqueness, link non-uniques, smart analytics, politics theory. Disad turns the case is under-utilized and compelling. I think there's such a thing as a 0%, or just straight-up negligible, risk of a disad, for what it's worth. An absurdly small risk of net benefit would be grudgingly voted on at best, but hey, if you win that it should make you win so it goes.

**Counterplans.** Aff teams: if you're going for it you //have to impact the solvency deficit// to the counterplan clearly. I don't like consult and conditions (except for the 1 in 100 time they actually make sense). Generally don't like CP's that compete off of normal means. I like tricky PIC's, but not generic word PIC's. If you're reading a generic CP, absent specific evidence, you gotta be making arguments about how your CP functions in the world of the aff unless they are just dropping everything; don't be ships passing in the light on CP solvency. Neg-friendly on some key CP theory questions (not too concerned about relatively unfettered conditionality, not too concerned about plan-minus PIC's unless one's particularly abusive), but will happily consider theory questions such as int'l fiat bad, consult bad, 50 state fiat bad (probably's good), conditions bad, etc., especially if you don't have a solvency advocate.

**Critiques.** Look, go for the K, but don't use it as an excuse to go on auto-pilot avoid answering any arguments. If you actually know your literature, you should be able to leverage it in specific, coherent ways that aren't cop outs against policy hack arguments. I will not be pleased by negative teams that do not answer basic policy arguments like case outweighs and the perm double-bind well. Also annoying - and often risky - when distinct perms are grouped in the block. Don't do a card-heavy overview to avoid doing a real line-by-line (this happens more on the K than other arguments). For the aff, I will ignore your case outweighs arguments if you ignore or mishandle framework arguments that render such claims irrelevant; you have to get past the framework questions. Neg, explaining the link in the context of the affirmative is helpful to round out the K (and show that you're actively thinking), and I like when are links effectively explained/applied as case turns to give you oft much-needed leverage on case.

**Critical affs.** Basically same comments as above. I like when there's some connection to, or at least more than superficial reference to, the topic area. I will not be impressed by critical teams that drop tons of arguments and attempt to lazily answer them back by one or two main structural issues, especially on the framework flow. If you advocate a policy with critical impacts, I don't think it's inconsistent to read typical policy answers if they don't clearly ideologically conflict, and would encourage that diversity. For the neg, quite open to voting on framework for affs that don't read a plan.