Webster,+Christy

USMA
Number of rounds on the topic (2006-2007): 70-75 Years Judging College: 4

interpretations of the resolution. Prove that yours is more net beneficial and provide an impact and you win the debate. I think of this as an evaluative tool for discerning T debates and it applies to non-traditional aff's as well, unless the debaters provide me with another framework. Spec args are fine also.
 * Topicality**: My default is that topicality is about competing

position that has an alternative come down to offense (disads) to the permutation vs. in roads against the "solvability" of that alternative. It's vital to garner some offense against the links that the permutation doesn't solve for and for the negative to implicate those links as disads to the permutation. I'd prefer not to feel as though I have to read a ton of your cards at the end of a round to synthesize your argument. My preference is to read evidence that is the focus of the finals rebuttals. I don't often flow author names since I feel as though it leads to me being confused between the 8 pieces of Agamben evidence on my flow.
 * Kritiks**: For me, most times good critical debates that center around a

the best deployment of the DA involves interacting the disad impact with the case. Please take the time to kick them cleanly.
 * Disads**: I heart a really involved DA/CP debate. I often think some of

like "Dispo solves the Neg's offense" are good but warranting them is even better. When I am judging a debate I always feel like it is more important to evaluate the arguments made as opposed to inserting my own personal opinion in the mix. However, when I say that to debaters they still seem to what to know what my general feeling is regarding things like Dispo and Agent CP's... So here you all go. I tend to think that Dispo is OK, Conditionality is rather shady and PICS can go either way depending on the nature of CP. Just to let you know... not a huge fan of the "Our K is a gateway arg" cause actually it's not a gateway arg.... it's just conditional. I think that it is often advantageous to have the groundwork for weighing the impacts to CP theory, perm theory, and alternative theory debates explicated and framed by the 1AR. This means reasons why this comes before T and warrants as to why it is a reason the reject the team and not just the arg should probably be made by that point in the debate.
 * Theory**: Love good technically proficient theory debates. Sentences

that both teams do extremely effective impact work. My biggest suggestion when debating framework in front of me is to make sure to keep the rest of the debate in mind. How can your Aff be offensive even in a world that you are loosing a portion of the framework debate? Competitiveness- Are portions of the Neg's framework not competitive with Aff's? How does that circumvent the Neg's ability to garner offense off of the impacts to the framework debate?
 * Framework**- I really enjoy these debates. Framework debates necessitate

are done well and when, at the end of the round, there is an argument that is being made. I am not the best judge for you if your strategy is to say nothing in an effort to bait the other side into being the only one who actually makes an argument. I feel as though this leads to debate that are woefully underdeveloped, frustrating, and debate only actually occurs when the final rebutalists decide to finally illuminate why they think they should win. That being said if you are a performance team with a coherent arg you are good to go.
 * Performance**- I see a lot of it. I really enjoy these debates when they


 * Some topic specific stuff...**

-I am enjoying the T debates on this topic. All things being equal (which I understand in debate never are) I think its probably a good idea for the Aff to speicify the grounds of the overrule. Ummm.... It is a legal topic and most of the good ground from the resolution comes from the legal question you choose to address. If you run Casey and don't want to have to answer alternate ground counterplans or grounds based solvency args then I assume the solvency for you case cannot be that great. -Test Case Spec... Ah, is there ever a round that goes by where I don't hear the Test Case Spec? I cannot count the number of times I have had to vote on this because of some pretty horrific 2AC blocks. -There really has been an explosion of bad disads on this topic. I appreciate Affs who choose to call bullshit on some of these internal link stories. - A highlight of some of the "stellar" args I have been forced to vote for this year: The 9-0 CP. Enforcement Spec. The Clarify CP. Justice SPEC. The "The" USSC PIC. Yeah, I feel dirty. Please allow me to vote on some good args.

Run what you want and what you feel you are good at. Speed is fine. Speed and clarity are even better :) Please remember to be polite and considerate. I know many of us tend to turn into a cracked out version of Perry Mason when the timer starts but please forgo this urge and remain civil. Answer questions in CX. Being evasive/sketchy looks bad and makes you seem unsure/insecure about your args. Make me laugh. Don't steal prep. I hate it. No, I really hate it. I feel a certain burden to protect the 2NR from new and unpredictable 2AR extrapolations and cross applications. Finally, debate is for the debaters. Take what I have said above as a guide and not the end all. If you have any questions feel free to ask me! Good luck to all and have fun!