Von+Raesfeld,+Audrey

toc  **Email for email chains:** audrey.vonraesfeld@gmail.com. If possible, I'd prefer an email chain be setup.

**Affiliations**: Uni. of California at Berkeley. Sonoma Academy.

**Background:** I'm currently a student at UC Berkeley and am an assistant coach to Sonoma Academy. I debated two years in Policy and have cleared on the national circuit, so I probably have some idea of what I'm doing.

=**The Debater's Cheat Sheet:** =
 * I don't have any strong argumentative preferences. I'm pretty well familiar with the basis of arguments you'll find on the circuit. Unless you're blatantly racist, sexist, or transphobic, then I'm more than likely willing to listen to the argument.
 * Every argument should be a viable 2NR/2AR option; don't read clearly unviable/throwaway arguments just to waste time. You're better off just shortening your speech if this is your strategy.
 * I have a tendency to judge via a offense/defense lens of framing but I'm more than comfortable throwing this out if you can warrant the shift.
 * I believe my role as a judge is to evaluate the desirability of the affirmative.
 * **Speed is fine. Be clear.**
 * Know your strengths and do what you're comfortable doing. There are no bad strategies except those that are executed out of fear or those that are not thought out. Just because I might be inclined towards a certain argument doesn't mean that should change your entire strategy just because it risks making me happy.
 * I'm a big fan of jokes; feel free to roast me and my teammates... but you'd better make it good.
 * Signpost and be clear when you transition through the speech. I do not want to open a speech doc unless I need to read evidence.
 * I'm a tree hugger, so make tree jokes n' other stuff and I'll be stoked.

=**Policy Arguments:**=
 * Counterplans are pretty cool. I love CP texts that are specified to specific parts of the affirmative and think that original counterplans //cough States CP cough// are severely underutilized.
 * Disadvantages are cool. No reason I wouldn't like them. I don't think zero risk is a real thing but I do think it's easy to win a much larger risk than the affirmative.

=**Topicality/Framework:**=
 * I default to competing interpretations, but I'm willing to swing either way if it's warranted.
 * Don't read throwaway T arguments.
 * I think that you should place more focus on impacting out topicality arguments. Sure, fairness probably matters but you need to explain why fairness or competitive equity are important in the context of the ballot that's sitting in front of me.
 * You must be able to beat the topical version of the affirmative. I think that a TVA, even just being able to access your literature takes out almost all of your offense against procedural arguments. You should try to provide reasons that topical action (under the interpretation) specifically excludes your literature base.
 * It's always good to know when theoretical or substantive strategies are strategic. Other than that, you should have a topical version of the affirmative, and offense against the counter interpretation.

=**Kritiks:**=
 * I'm down for kritiks. I'm well versed in most literature, but that means I also expect you to be well versed in it. I will notice and evaluate sloppy explanations. That being said, I have preferences: Baudrillard and his cohorts are frustrating and repugnant, and I'd rather not listen to these debates. If you are going to read high theory, I'll have a similar threshold for explanation. The higher the theory, the higher the threshold, you should also answer questions in the cross ex.
 * Winning these debates (or any debate) by being an asshole is not cool and will be reflected in your speaker points.
 * **Non-Traditional/Questionably Topical Affirmatives:** I'm fairly familiar with the literature as I've had my times with the UTNIF n' Friends. I'm open to these debates under the preferences I just named above. In addition, updating K-Aff uniqueness (Trump makes the state X) is a really persuasive argument, and it's something I'd love to judge. That being said, I have a high threshold for Pomo nonsense because unlike a few unnamed individuals, I tend to think that stuff exists and really do think that you should have a concrete advocacy statement.
 * I do not think that performance in JV/novice divisions is good for the activity. When executed properly, performance debates are some of the most interesting and important arguments that take place in this community, that being said, the execution simply does not exist in JV/Novice debate and it almost always devolves into some form of name calling or other disaster. I do not care if you are an amazing performance debater, in these pools, the chances are low that your opponents are similarly qualified. I really do not want to judge a debate that devolves into an antiblackness team being called white supremacists (Yes, I've seen it happen.)
 * I don't understand why debate as a home, or a survival strategy requires that you win ballots. Losing is probably the most valuable thing that can happen to you in this activity. Losses educate you and helps to hone your skills.
 * I don't understand why debate as a home, or a survival strategy requires you to win ballots. Losing is probably the most valuable thing debate can do for you, because it's loss that educates you and hones your skills. I never felt like I was no longer part of the debate community after going 2-3 at Fullerton.

= **Side Notes:** =
 * I think that case turns against affirmatives are underutilized. A lot of times, these affirmatives don't make sense and you can probably think of a cool way to turn them. Obviously don't do it if it isn't a winning strategy but know that going for these arguments is a strong move.
 * Please please please don't ask the other team "What cards did you read?" Flow the speech, not the speech doc.
 * Explain your solvency. If I don't know how your affirmative solves the impacts at the end of the debate, I'll be comfortable voting neg on presumption, and will be uncomfortable weighing affirmative offense against framework or literally any other argument. On the flip side, if I do know how and what your affirmative solves, I will be impressed and very happy with you/very willing to leverage the affirmative as a reason why framework is bad.
 * If you show me that you've posted the relevant documents (1NC Open Source, new offense) on the wiki after the debate, I'll give you a .2 speaker point boost because strong disclosure practices are probably good for the activity and should be encouraged. If you don't knw how, ask me and I'll help you set it up.

= = =**Speaker Point Scale** =

>29.5 you should win this tournament, I'll probably tell my friends about you

29-29.4 - deep elims, you should do well at this tournament

28.5-28.9 - good, needing some improvement but should probably break

28-28.4 - average

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">27.5-27.9 - decent, but with some big rhetorical or strategic mistakes

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">27-27.4 - needing serious improvement

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"><26.9 you made me sad or said something evil

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">0 you clipped cards (this comes with an emphatic L)