Herrmann,+Mariesa

Mariesa Herrmann Judging Philosophy Experience: 1 year coach at St. Stephen's Episcopal School Austin, TX, 3 years debate University of Texas-Austin, 4 years debate Bryan High School

I try my best to be objective and evaluate arguments as they are presented. I will vote for arguments that are intelligent, well-explained, and impacted. However, don't assume that just because I debated for the University of Texas that I love kritiks. I have a preference for counterplan and disad debate, but this certainly shouldn't deter you from running arguments you think will increase the likelihood you will win the debate. My feelings on specific arguments are below.

Topicality I understand that topicality can be a strategic argument, and for me, questions of competing interpretations vs. in round abuse can be debated out. However, I think that in cases of reasonably topical affirmatives and affirmatives that are so widespread that they're predictable, the negative has a very high burden to prove that the aff is unfair. I once heard this good advice, which you should follow in front of me, if it's a tie between going for a substantive argument and topicality, you should go for substance.

Theory Again, theory can be a question of competiting interpretations or in round abuse. In general, I'm a fan of negative flexibility. Some advice: if it's a tie between going for theory and substantive arguments, you should go for substance. In addition, if you're going to read a whole bunch of theory arguments, slow down; these are a pain to flow. Going for theory arguments usually requires a substantial time investment in the rebuttals.

Disads I like disads. Explanation and impact comparisons are important.

Counterplans I like counterplans and tricky pics.

Kritiks I'm not that well read in this literature but I understand the way that many kritikal arguments are explained and deployed in debate. I prefer link and impact arguments that are specific to the plan, as opposed to vague statements like "you link because you use the state." Most kritiks should probably have an alternative because otherwise, they run the risk of being non-unique. I'm not fond of the vagueness in kritikal debates that occurs because negs refuse to explain what they mean or what exactly they'll defend. Just be willing to debate - not run away from it.

Kritik Affs I generally think Kritikal Affs should have a topical plan, and that the Aff should defend this plan. It may be possible for you to convince me otherwise.