Kretschmer,+Nari

I did LD nationally for Fort Lauderdale High School for 3 years, and I currently attend Emory University.

I was pretty fast when I debated, so speed shouldn’t be much of an issue. I would appreciate it if you slowed down for tags and author names, since ultimately it benefits you if I accurately flow your arguments. Clarity is important, so I’ll say clear, slow or loud if I need to.

As a debater, I tended to run comparative type frameworks, but I don’t have a particular preference for utilitarian standards. A clearly established standard is crucial to my adjudication of the round, so make sure to spend time on the framework debate, or everything else becomes functionally useless in the round.

I very rarely ran critical arguments in high school, so I am not very familiar with that literature. I’m not opposed to K’s, but they need to be VERY clearly articulated. Avoiding questions about your critical arguments or giving vague answers in cx wont reflect very well on your speaks.

I like policy style arguments. Plans, DAs and CPs are all good ideas if you're debating in front of me.

Theory is fine. I prefer actual abuse to potential abuse, although I am definitely still open to those arguments. I am not a fan of paragraph theory, and I feel that competing interps are generally the best way to answer theoretical arguments. I think that fairness and education are voters, and it unlikely that you will persuade me otherwise.

Weighing is definitely important. Good weighing makes me happy, because it makes my decision making process easier, particularly in util rounds. That includes evidence comparison, which I like a lot. Also, I’m a fan of well done statistics debates.

A few other random things:

I think that extensions should explicitly contain a claim, a warrant, and an impact. However, I tend to be more lenient about incomplete 1ar extensions then most judges.

I will call for a card if it is contested, or if either debater asks me to, and I reserve the right to read any minimized text if it is relevant to the round.

I don’t care about typical debate protocol (sitting, standing, etc) but I don’t like catty cx or debaters who are excessively condescending towards their opponents.

I do not like pre standards arguments. I understand them and will evaluate them, but there better be multiple reasons why any particular argument matters more then the standard established in round.

I know that lots of specifics are missing from this—if you have any other questions, please ask me before the round, or email me at narianna8@gmail.com. Otherwise, be nice to each other and have fun!