Konopka+Amber

Hello Everyone! My name is Amber Konopka and I am currently a Freshmen at Wilkes University, majoring in Elementary Education and Business Administration. I graduated from Harry S. Truman High School (Levittown, PA) this past year, 2010, and debated Policy all four years of high school. I currently do not participate with the Debate and Forensics Team at my school, but will be judging as much as possible these next few years. I debated on both the circuit, state and national level so I am fine with all sorts of debate situations.

I am fine with speed, just as long as the card tags are clear, I hate debates that turn into disasters because no one can understand what is being said. I also would like distinct sign posting since I have noticed teams are slowly drifting from aknowledging that the judges need to know what arguments are being discussed. Please do not make the debate into a round tht I must look at the cards at the end of the round. I do not like to intervene and prefer not to read your evidence.

I am fresh out of the debate world, so I am familiar with most arguments, except some new D/As and Kritiks of this year, so don't be afraid to run what you think is nessicary.

MY SPECIFICS-

TOPICALITY: I personally do not like Topicality because I feel as though it takes away from the debate as a time suck, but this does not mean that I won't vote on it. If you prove to me distinct instances of abuse, and the affirmative team does not clearly prove other wise, I will notice and I will vote negative. Being said, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE do not make me vote on Topicality, because I honestly hate doing so.

THEORY: All other theory arguments are fine with me, and I personally like theory debates; I think it adds alittle bit of a twist to debate, by defining specific standards. I am very keen on voting on theory arguments, and have done so in the past. Again, I want theory shells to have clear standards and voters, and if you go for theory int he end, make it worth listening to. My partner and I ran theory arguments both as affirmative and negative often, and like I said I will hold theory to a higher standard than other arguments, if it becomes a main focus of the debate.

DISADS: I like disadvantages that make sense, and have a significant and realistic impact. Although I know most arguments today give the impact of extinction, I prefer arguments with real life situations. I dislike Politic related disads because I feel they are most unrealistic. Also, make sure if you are reading me a D/A, you have a good uniqueness card/cards. Affirmative, please provide me with distinct argumentation of how and why the D/A doesn't link, or how you solve back the D/A. Rounds where there is no link debate on a D/A flow anger me, because that is a main point of reading a D/A. I will vote on Disads.

COUNTERPLANS: I like counterplans, as long as they are mutually exclusive and you can prove the opposing organization can do the specific plan. Also I will only vote on a CP if you give me an inherent net benefit, meaning, you prove to me through some means you solve better. I hate when rounds have a counterplan that has no actual net benefit. As the affirmative team, I will not consider the counterplan if you justify your solvency, and the solvency deficit compared to the counterplan. I am fine with flowing theory on a counterplan flow. I don't mind if you run multiple counterplans, just make sure they will all work without linking to any net benefits, and/or any D/As. I will vote on Counterplans if it is relevent and appropriately debated in conjuntion with other arguments.

KRITIKS: I hate hate hate hate hate kiritiks, because I feel as though the rejection of the resolution is a rejection of policy debate and that makes me question why you are even competing. This being said, I am not opposed to listening to them, just prove the validity in round, and your alternative on the flow. Just note, I will probably never vote on a K.

CASE: I am a stock issues judge so remember to debate the case. I don't mind solvency debates as long as they make sense, and I prefer solvency evidence is specific to case, and not some aspect relating to case. I will vote affirmative, if the plan is debated well, and I have reason to. Debating the case specifically, is most important to me, because that is the point of policy debate and the point of the resolution.

OTHER THINGS TO NOTE: Give me clash, I don't want to listen to debates that have arguments not relevent to one another. I don't like rude debates! You can be agressive, but don't bean asshole, you will get low speaks. Run what you want, just make sure it makes sense.

Feel free to email me with any questions, I check my emails pretty often, so I will get back to you shortly. :) amber.konopka@wilkes.edu