Phillips,+Jenny

Debated Policy locally/nationally for 4 years at Blue Valley North in KS 2009-2013 Film student at The University of Texas Topic Experience: I’ve taken a couple of oceanography classes in college, so I’ve done some research pertaining the topic.

I read policy and critical arguments.

General: The information below gives ideas for adaptation. Read arguments that you are like the best that you can. I am open to listening to pretty much any aff. Arguments need to be impacted out. Extending the author and tagline is not enough for me. There should be framing of the debate. Why should I prefer your particular methodology? If I should be in an offense/defense paradigm, explain why your impacts turn and outweigh theirs. In a close debate, evidence quality>spin. I give high speaks for smart analytics and evidence indictments Try to make arguments interact with each other across multiple flows

I find case to be really important, and distribute speaks with that in mind Neg should diversify their offense and defense on the case the aff should use the offense of their case more often—I expect critical teams to utilize the nuanced offense of their aff
 * Case **

Links>Uniqueness to determine who wins net-offense. The neg should tell the story of the DA early on in the debate. Tell a continuous impact story in your impact calc and give me contextualized turns case arguments Aff needs to tell me why they have the key internal link to solve for DA impact
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;">DAs **

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;"> Going one off is often times preferred when it is a performative contradiction with other offcase <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;">There needs to be a clear and contextualized link story. Analysis>evidence. I am not persuaded by someone who doesn’t have a clear explanation of what the world of the alt looks like. I will give higher speaks if you quote aff evidence for your link story, and use cross-x concessions as link arguments. Refrain from using meaningless K buzzwords. Role of the ballot arguments are overemphasized and are often times not developed enough for me to vote on them. They aren’t always necessary but if you go for it develop the argument. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;">Alternative links to the k is a legitimate aff argument
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;">K’s **

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;">I prefer when the aff engages in the criticism as opposed to just relying on case outweighs and framework. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;">Reject all Ks, as a framework, is not persuasive.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;">CPs are theoretically legitimate unless the aff proves otherwise (Word PIC, Delay, multiple Advantage CPs)
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;">CPs **

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;">I default reasonability unless you tell me otherwise <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;">T isn’t a reverse voter <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;">The neg should provide a topical version of the aff to gain access to their offense <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;">Contextualize the standards to the debate <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;">I love a great T debate against critical affs that reject the resolution—policy teams shouldn’t feel restricted to just going for framework
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;">T **

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;">I’m probably not the best judge to go for theory in front of, but if that’s how your strategy pans out go for it. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;">Theory is usually a reason to reject the argument and not the team unless it’s condo.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;"> Theory **