Glassberg,+Marlee

I debated at Gulliver Preparatory during high school and I am currently a student at New York University. Though I would consider myself traditional in terms of debate style, I do find interest in performance and K debate. Debate how you want to debate, not how you think I want you to debate. All arguments should have a claim, warrant, and impact. Tag team cx is always good. Flash doesn’t count as prep time but if you take excessively long and are clearly prepping I will let you know that I’m starting your clock. Also, please include me in the email chain, or flash me your speeches if you’re reading cards. I debated for 5 years and understand the arguments, but I am a lay judge. Spreading is fine, just be clear. I will say clear if you aren’t. Presumption: Explain yourself and you can win on presumption. If it is true, who am I to deny that? Topic experience: Judged one tournament (Yale Invitational) on this topic. Minor research experience. The 2nr/2ar is where you should leave me to evaluate your arguments. Don’t assume I will default to anything said in the 2nc/2ac. If you don’t extend and explain your arguments thoroughly it will be hard for me to sign my ballot.

** Kritik: ** Not well versed on most kritik’s but as long as you explain your argument well I have no problem voting on the K as long as your alt actually solves and your impact outweighs the affs impacts (and obviously it must link). Reading generic links is fine as long as the debate is strong. I prefer case specific links because it is just much better for debate and what everybody gets out of the debate. ** Performance/framework **: I would consider myself liberal in thought but relatively traditional in debate practice, so as much as I love to watch performance teams, it will be hard to win my ballot if your opponent is killing the framework debate. If the performance is within the realm of the topic it will be much easier for me to sign the ballot. I do believe that framework is a good argument though and as a non-performance debater, I tend to sway towards framework arguments over all else. ** Topicality **: Very little topic experience, but I do appreciate a good T argument. Don’t extend T just for the sake of extending it, extend it if it is actually a viable 2nr. T is just the truth so if you make your case well and T is applicable, I’d love to hear it. If you don’t read T and I think you should have, I’ll most likely tell you during the RFD. ** Theory **: Don’t try and win on theory if it’s a weak argument. Even if you debate theory better than your opponent, if your argument is irrelevant I won’t feel obligated to vote for you. That being said, I do love a good theory debate. ** Disads **: Love this. If there is a good, case specific link, and the impact isn’t too extravagant, if it is actually somewhat realistic, I don’t know what gets better than a good DA debate. Don’t even get me started on politics. If you’re not reading an elections disad right now I don’t know what you’re doing. ** CP **: As long as it’s competitive, I like it. CP theory can sometimes be a little weak to me. Have a solvency advocate and there should be a perm debate here.