Plange,+Brittany

 Background Info: In high school I was a member of Moore High Schools speech and debate team. There I competed in LD, PFD, OO and Extemp. I crossed over to policy in 2014 when I started debating for the University of Oklahoma’s policy debate team. During my time competing I have engaged with almost every argument you could think. I myself am a “K debater” focusing on the African Diaspora and issues that relate to black women. I honestly do not care what you do in front of me. Debate is a game, a performance, I am the audience and attempt to judge as fair as possible. With that said I am a human and have biases (which is why I prefaced this with my background information).  Speed: I am fine with speed but I ask that you are as clear as possible. If speed causes a trade off then go slower, especially if you are not providing me with the evidence you are reading during the speech or speech doc. Do not be surprised if you hear me yell clear. I want hear your arguments and see how the debate is shaping.  Framing: This is a dying art in debate. Debaters forget that these speeches are orations and your time to tell me why your impacts matter and why they should be preferred over your opponents. Most debaters are at par with defending their impacts but are light to nonexistent on interlacing that with other impacts happening in the round. I like framing and I like being persuaded. It makes my job easy.  ROB: Often times these are arbitrarily thrown out without any real analysis as to why that has anything to do with your advocacy or alternative position. If you are attempting to use the ROB as a reason I should view debate through your lens, then your framing needs to be on point. I also think that you should leverage your ROB more offensively and work into the debate rather than just stamping it somewhere.  Framework/Topicality: I will vote on topicality and framework but I have what I find to be a reasonable threshold for the negative in order to win these arguments (Some may call high depending on what type of debate style you utilize. Personally, when debating the argument, I am not a fan because I find it hard to believe that the negative has lost alot of ground in the round. But, I have found myself shift in this area of debate as I have been introduced to different and more softer versions of framework that isn't just "You don't defend the state…that's bad". I fine the versions of framework that go in the direction of the affirmative has to prove the efficacy of its solvency and that starting with institutional policy making is best for X reasons, way more persuasive for example. I find it the job of the negative to garner offense as to why the method of the 1ac is 1. inconsistent with the resolution and 2. why we should center the DISCUSSION around why discussing legalism and actions by the U.S. can solve but also are net preferable for a better debate. If you chose to go for precedent arguments or portable skills know that I ideologically do not buy these arguments because I don't think that a critical aff negates the possibility of creating productive advocacy skills. With that being aid if you make the argument and the aff does not answer I do evaluate dropped arguments highly (AFF PLEASE ANSWER THIS LOL). You need to win reasons why their choice of method either doesn't allow for engagement with solutions that produce material change or why they do in fact kill engagement strategies for the neg. The education and decision making skills need to impacted for me to persuaded why your interpretation is net better for debate and for engagement purposes. TVA: Think about your topical version-it will be obvious that you just slapped together if you have not thought about how the topical version resolves the 1ac impacts in a way that fits your interpretation. The topical version doesn't need to solve all of the aff but it does need to prove that same types of discussions could happen in the world of the neg's interpretation. AFF: If you are impact turning T/FW args you don’t have to read a we meet argument in front of me to the negs interpretation. Read your interp and just defend why that 1. Doesn’t make debate impossible for the neg (or why I shoulnd’t care if it does make debate impossible for the neg) 2. Is a more preferable model of debate 3. Is a strategic chose that is tied to your advocacy. So for instance if you are reading an aff all about not being productive or disengaging from normative ways you can be like we don’t meet and that’s the point and an example of the implantation of the aff or aff solvency. If you drop the TVA you are in a bad spot to win fw. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"> Don't think that all this means I won't default to framework. I think that the 1ac is always already offensive to this argument so you should really leverage the aff against alot of the internal link claims to fw. If you read 40 DA's on fwk there is probably a risk that they aren't well warranted so you should focus on your best offense and prioritize this as reasons to why your affirmation is the best scholarship. Spend time explaining to me why your interpretation is net preferable and an accessible ground for both the aff and negative. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"> DA's: <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">While am I critical debater I love DA’s especially when they are combined with a K. To me the role of the negative in debate is to negate the entirety of the aff or parts of the aff and show how it makes the status quo worse in some way. This can manifest itself in different forms of argumentation but I think at its core that means point out a disadvantage to the aff. I do think that DA debates are valuable discussions. It should have a viable link (which is common knowledge). I will be more focused on the I/L and impact debate then the link debate because I will know pretty earlier on if there is no link. This does not mean that I don't evaluate this portion but that my argumentative bias lies in the world where the direction of the DA is true or false. Impact comparison is very important to me because I want to know why I should care about the prospect of Nuclear War over Global Warming or Structural Violence. Spend time on this because it shapes how I evaluate the round at the end of the debate. I will probably vote for the team that says, “this impact outweighs XYZ”. If you are winning the heck out of the link of DA but are lack luster on impact level there is a chance that you lose because I don't think that your impact was prioritized. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"> CP: <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">Read the CP text slowly or make sure I get it because I need to know what the CP is and how it competes with the AFF. Have a net benefit and make the difference in mechanism between the aff and the CP clear because it helps me understand why your advocacy should be preferred over the aff.