Davis,+Jenny

I debated for 4 years in high school at Greenhill and am now in my 4th year debating at UT (Austin). While I’d say I’m open to listening to just about anything, I prefer policy debates/am more familiar with the literature. Do what you’re best at – I’d much rather hear a good K debate if that’s your thing than a poorly executed counterplan/disad. Topicality – I like T debates in general, but be aware that I haven’t judged a ton of rounds on this topic. I reserve the right to throw something at you if you make excessive RVIs or counter interp only our case is T. Disads – I like them, particularly in-depth case/disad or disad/cp rounds. Impact calculus is important. Don’t get so caught up in reading cards (though cards are good too) that you forget to point out that their disad is stupid/doesn’t have a link/all the link cards are from 12 congresses ago, etc. Debate smart. CPs – See above, I like them. In terms of theory, I tend to think that pics and conditionality are alright but I could be persuaded to vote otherwise with good arguments/a significant time investment. Kritiks – explain them. Assume I haven’t read whatever book you spent all summer cutting. In particular, explain your alt. Framework is also important – what’s my role as the judge/how should discourse be evaluated/how should I weigh impacts/etc.Critical Affs – (see above) you should probably have a plan or some sort of advocacy statement but that’s your call. Be sure to explain your framework/what it means to vote for your project/what it means to vote aff/whatever. Overall, don’t be a dbag to your partner, make smart arguments, avoid warrantless ones/poorly argued cheap shots, and have fun.