Gelfer,+Rebecca

Rebecca Gelfer Clements ’15 University of Pennsylvania ‘19 Conflicts: Clements, Northland

I debated for Clements high school in Texas, and now I coach Northland Christian. I’ve debated on the national circuit and local circuits.

__GENERAL__ I think debate is an educational activity that can benefit all parties involved. As such, I’d rather you read arguments that I never read as a debater and explain them well than read things I read, but read them poorly. If you make smart, strategic, and well-warranted arguments, I’ll enjoy them a lot! Some basic things to keep in mind is..
 * 1) 1. BE CLEAR PLEASE—this doesn’t mean slow down for three seconds and then continue being incomprehensible. It means if you want me to catch something (**especially** alt texts, counterplan texts, theory interps, advocacy texts etc) you need to give me a moment to write it down. It also means that you should signpost clearly and explain which part of the flow you’re on so I can follow you. **I reserve the right to not vote on arguments that I didn’t catch in the first speech.**
 * 2) 2. WEIGH, CHRYSTALLIZE, AND GIVE VOTERS—I feel like lots of debates get really muddled and complicated because debaters will prioritize making the last quick line by line argument than summarize the round and explain which arguments come first. I cannot emphasize how important a clear decision calculus is.

__ THEORY/TOPICALITY __ I don’t mind these two. One person’s “frivolous theory” is another person’s treasure. On that point, I think a well articulated and clean abuse story is strategic. I think lots of (what can be deemed as) frivolous theory arguments can be answered quickly and easily with smart counterinterps and good weighing, but that’s up to you to make/take that risk. Topicality I think is also interesting and I enjoy good, well-warranted T debates, even better with good evidence. Please slow down on interps. Please slow down on interps. Please. I default thinking theory is a reason to drop the argument, no RVIs, and competing interps, but these are just defaults and if you present a reason they’re not valid then I will use that paradigm instead.

A sidenote on critical/nontopical/semi-topical affs: I personally enjoy when there is a connection between the aff and the resolution. What that means is up to you. I won’t arbitrarily not vote for a psition because I don’t think it’s what the topic entails, but I do think that it’s a perfectly reasonable strategy for the negative to read topicality and explain why a different advocacy should be adopted instead.

__ POLICY __ I read these arguments a lot when I was in high school, so I’m quite familiar with them and enjoy listening to them. I think the best policy debates have lots of evidence comparison, great weighing, and a clear decision calculus. Make sure you explain how each position operates in the round.

__ TRICKS __ I’m not a fan. I don’t think that the implications of arguments should make a 180 degree turn in between speeches. If you create a fully new implication in the 1AR, I think the other debater has a right to challenge the new application. I like debaters that can beat these positions with intelligent interps and substantive arguments.

__ PHILOSOPHY/FRAMEWORK __ I didn’t read that much of this in high school so I’m not as familiar with the literature base, but that //does not mean// that I won’t evaluate these arguments. I think they’re perfectly valid just like any other arguments. If you’re going to read more top heavy cases, it is in your best interest to slow down and explain logically what your argument entails/the logical syllogism behind it. It is also extremely helpful if you’re reading a more complicated framework/philosophy to explain which arguments link to it, which don’t, and why.

__ CRITICAL ARGUMENTS __ I think these are really interesting as well, if read correctly. Please don’t just spew some complicated jargon at 500 words a minute thinking I’ll sort it out later (hint: I won’t). There is not one type of critical argument that I prefer any more than another, just please explain the alternative extremely well (or if there is no alternative, why you have uniqueness). I have to understand the advocacy to vote for it. I don’t think that just by nature of someone reading a role of the ballot that it automatically precedes every layer of the debate. Like every other argument, comparison and a weighing metric is integral to my understanding of it’s function in the round.

__ ARGUMENTS/POSITIONS I WILL NEVER VOTE FOR __

Explicitly racist, sexist, homophobic, etc that make myself and other debaters/people uncomfortable in any way. Be prepared to defend the way your arguments interact with issues of race, privilege, etc.

A strategy that attempts to wash the debate on purpose in order to trigger permissibility/presumption.

A contingent framework/advocacy that is "triggered" in a later speech.

Other than that, please ask any questions before the round that you may have! I’ll be more than happy to answer. Have fun and good luck!