Oh,+Hannah

Policy debate at La Costa Canyon HS - 2 years My knowledge is very limited on this topic. Make sure to explain everything. My ideal debate to judge is an in-depth case debate or a disad/counterplan debate. I prefer substance debates. Theory/framework debates should only occur when there is a genuine violation and there is no other way to debate the round without addressing these questions first.
 * Background:**
 * General:**


 * Disads:** I like politics, relations, and trade-off disads - but any disad that links to the aff is fine. You MUST have specific links. Articulate the warrants, give me analysis, and tell me a story.
 * CPs:** Must solve most or all of the case and have a net benefit. Clearly explain what the counter plan actually does in context of the plan.
 * Kritiks:** I’m not a fan, but if it links and there’s a significant impact to it, I will vote on it. I’m not familiar with K lit so make sure to explain it well.
 * Topicality:** If there is an actual violation, strong evidence, and clear abuse, I will vote for T. Also, explain why the aff’s interpretation is particularly bad and make the standards debate specific to the round.
 * Theory:** I will vote for theory if and only if there is in-round abuse. Don’t read theory blocks for 5 minutes straight.
 * Framework:** If it does come down to framework, make sure to explicitly outline your impacts in your rebuttals and do comparative analysis.
 * K Affs:** I am happy to listen to critical affirmatives as long as they are grounded in a topical interpretation of the resolution.
 * Performance/Non-traditional:** No.
 * Speed:** I’m fine with speed. Although, you don’t need to be fast to win. I prefer clarity, smart arguments, and solid warrants over speed. If you are incomprehensible, I will not flow you.
 * Calling for evidence:** I will call for evidence if you tell me to and if it’s an issue of contention in the debate. Otherwise, I am going off the warrants in the round.
 * Impact calculus:** IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT. You cannot win the round without this. I will not do any work for you - tell me exactly what your scenario is, how this outweighs/turns the other teams impacts, etc.
 * Cross-ex:** Be aggressive. This is where I see who’s smart and who’s not. Build ethos. Use this time to nail the other team’s weakest points. Make sure your questions are pointed and have purpose. If it’s your cross x, own it. Just don’t be rude - let the other team answer your questions. Also, please don’t ask convoluted questions that take a minute to spit out - be prepared to know what you’re asking and make sure you use all of your cross x time.

Reasons for deduction - Unclear, being rude to the other team and/or your partner, bad cross-ex, forgetting to keep track of time, NOT FLOWING
 * Speaker points:**

I think debate is a competitive activity. I do like to see confidence, aggression, and most of all some passion into what you are saying. If I see that you actually care about the debate and your arguments, I will give you a 28 at least. I hate going into debates where the debaters don’t want to be there. Be engaged. Have fun and good luck to all of you.