Sun,+Jessica

I will always prefer a good debate over a bad one--default going for what you're good at if it's between that or something you are unsure of but think I'll like. Seriously, I am pretty down with any argument, it's just a matter of how you debate it.

Topicality: I really enjoy T. I think T should be debated like a plan v. counterplan debate--what does debate look like in the world of your/their interpretation? What are your interp's net benefits and what are their interp's disads? How do those net benefits/disads interact? IMPACTS are where the T flow is won for me--compare them and tell me how I should evaluate the flow. T IS NOT A REVERSE VOTING ISSUE.

Ks: It seems to me a lot of K debates lack the level of explanation that we have come to expect in a straight up debate. Articulate for me the link/impact/alt solvency and contextualize in terms of the aff--what does the K mean for the aff's impacts/solvency? Brownie points: pointing out the links in 1AC evidence. Affs, would a generic "AT Obama Good" block often beat any politics scenario? NO--so why would a generic "AT K" block be sufficient for any K? Engage in the various aspects/intricacies of the K.

Counterplans: Can be a really cool way for teams to showcase the work they've done. Case specific counterplans that have well developed net benefits are a good strat in front of me. I like PICs that show that a team has done their research, but am persuaded by PICs bad theory on generic crappy ones. Very persuaded by process counterplan theory. Please impact theory--I don't necessarily believe that winning these theory arguments means you win the round, but that they serve as a justification for other arguments (like perms) that win you the round. Condo might be bad--contextualize it in terms of the round.

Disads: Yes, please. High level impact comparison will make me love you. A good DA+case 2NR will always make me happy.

If you are being a jackass you will get one verbal warning and then I will start to dock speaks--.5 for every subsequent instance of douchiness.

I tend to give 27.5s to debaters who I think are average, 28s to those who didn't make any major strategic errors, 28.5s is if you didn't eff up and you did something to impress me. 29--no mistakes and you dominated the framing of the round, aka you did more than one thing to impress me and I will tell someone about it excitedly after the round because you were awesome. >27 means flowing was painful/you did something to make me sad/angry, either poor debating or being mean.