Kiki,+Sam

I debated three years of varsity policy in high school and am now a freshman at Amherst College.

General Things: All claims need impacts. Sounds simple but you’d be surprised.

Clarity is huge. I am fine with speed but that doesn’t mean that you need to be reading top speed at all times. Definitely slow down during CP texts and line-by-line theory/T debates. I promise you the extra couple seconds that it will cost you will definitely be worth my understanding your points

Rebuttal speeches are a time to strategically pick arguments that, together, are cohesive and compelling rather than a time to rush through blippy line-by-line analysis. I tend to find cogent, conceptual groupings most persuasive as well as good comparative impact calculus.

Rarely do I subscribe to this idea of “conceded argument=game over”. Often times I think that debaters make meta-arguments that just as adequately address less-important areas of the flow and I will grant those cross-applications where I feel the debater can reasonably justify them.

Specific args:

Disads- These are my favorite types of debates. For the negative to win a disad I think it is less about unloading link and impact walls in the 2NC and more making proper analysis. The negative needs to have a compelling link story (helps if it is more specific to the aff), good reasons why they short-circuit aff solvency (can be supplemented/substituted by terminal case defense in certain cases), reasons disad turns case, and succinct impact calculus explaining how the disad should be evaluated.

CPs- I think the negative gets away with a lot of unfair process and actor CPs that I do not necessarily agree with. With that said, if the negative can provide a solid theoretical defense as to why their CP is justified I will vote for it but I strongly encourage the aff to test the CP on the theoretical level. Bonus speaker points for really specific PICs.

T- I think a competing interp framework makes the most sense to me. I’m not a big fan of the reasonability argument. I think the aff needs to have good reasons why they fit within the scope of the resolution which could best be justified with strong, contextual evidence. I do not like voting on T arguments whose sole premise is some obscure definition in the dictionary nor do I like voting on pointless procedurals. However, as far as you impact your claims I will give all arguments fair weight.

Ks- I’m fine with them. I am not particularly well-read when it comes to the ever-expansive field of K lit but I certainly know how K args function. Take the time to explain the thesis of your K to me in the block. Be very clear how the alternative functions, what framework you want to establish, and what the link story is. I usually find that a lot of K teams in high school lack proper link analysis and exhaust the framework flow. In my opinion, win enough of the framework flow to make comparative impact claims but spend the majority of your time on link and alternative analysis.