Peilen,+Bree

Edina High School Class of 2014 University of Michigan Class of Fall 2017 Assistant Coach for GBS from 2015-present


 * Quick Philosophy**: I’ll do my best to judge based solely on the arguments in a vacuum despite my own personal opinions -I won't automatically vote against anything. That being said, I think it’s useful to know your judge's preferences/biases/experience. I naturally default to viewing things through a "utilitarian policymaker's perspective," for lack of a better phrase. Debate centered around a topical plan is what I more often coach, and is also what I most often debated in college.

Be nice and respectful to everyone in round. Harassment and bullying is NOT ok under any circumstance. If you’re being mean or rude past the point of friendly competition in round, don’t think I won’t dock your speaks.

If you have any questions about my philosophy, feel free to ask for clarification before the round or send me an email (bpeilen17@gmail.com)


 * Specifics**:


 * Counterplans**: Hands down my favorite kind of debates. I love well-researched and specific CPs. In terms of “cheating CPs” I’m sympathetic to aff theory arguments after being a 2A throughout most of hs and seeing one too many 12-conditional plank CPs, but I’m definitely willing to vote for “cheating” CPs, especially if you have reasons why your CP is justified or educational in the context of the specific aff or resolution.


 * Topicality/Theory**: I like T debates a lot. I think T is much more of an evidence-based question than it is “are limits good or bad?” I’m willing to vote on theory, but I’m much more persuaded by theory arguments to justify a perm/reject an argument than I am to vote against a team solely on theory.


 * Disads**: This seems very straightforward. I like them? Make sure to also include good "turns the case" and/or case defense.


 * Impact Turns**: I love impact turn debates if they're not-so junk-science-y. Warming is probably real, just saying.


 * Kritiks**: eh. I’m well versed in critical theory –I’m an English major with an interest in Marxist and queer theorists such as Butler, Foucault, etc. However in debates I think there is a disconnect between the scale of negative links/impacts & the ability of the alt to solve. The more specific your links are/contextualized in terms of the aff, the better. Explain your alternative or theoretical framework -what does it mean for me to vote negative? Am I rejecting an unethical argument? Am I setting a precedent for future debates? Be specific.


 * K Affs/Framework**: I prefer to judge debates with topical plans. The more I've worked as a coach, the more I've come to appreciate the necessity and benefits of predictable research limits. That being said, I won't default to voting for framework -there are many fascinating and valid criticisms of the activity and of particular resolutions. I'll vote for the team that did the better debating. Don't just criticize the other team's interpretation of the resolution; explain how your framework offers the better, more educational or fair interpretation of the topic.