Carithers,+Katie

Senior at Westminster

I’m a 2N, I've debated for 4 years in high school.


 * Disclaimer:** I will do my best to evaluate the debate as fairly as possible despite any of my biases. Debate is a persuasive game and read the arguments that you feel most comfortable reading.


 * Impact calc is extremely important** and often under-utilized—it can decide which team wins or loses a debate.


 * Topicality:** I think really any aff can lose to a t violation if argued well and not utterly ridiculous. Debaters should explain their impacts beyond nebulous ideas like “fairness” and “education” and clearly identify and articulate offense. What the topic would look like under each interpretation should be explained including affs allowed and affs excluded.


 * Das:** Always great, love these debates. Politics is a great argument.


 * Ks:** I have gone for Ks and am familiar with general K literature like security, neoliberalism, etc. I feel like the most important piece in these debates is negative explanation. If you're reading anything really high theory you're going to need to do more explanation.

Generally I think affs should be able to weigh their impacts against the K -- though I can be convinced otherwise. I think the 2NR should articulate why their specific education outweighs any fairness arguments and what my ballot should accomplish.

Aff: The aff impacts are powerful tool to leverage vs the K, especially when most alts are silly and don’t resolve anything. K tricks should always still be answered in the 2AR even if the 1AR drops them with an explanation that they were not articulated in that same argumentative form in the block as in the 2NC – example: “fiat is illusory” said in the 2NC and then blown up in the 2NR.

Neg, I think you should explain and warrant your arguments well. The K should be as specific to the aff as possible – that may mean just contextualizing the links to the aff. Explain the alt and why it solves for its impacts and why it solves for or accesses the impacts of the aff.


 * Theory:** 2 condo is probably okay though I can be convinced it’s not. Process CPs, PICs, and Delay CPs are most likely voting issues


 * Plan-less Affs**: Affs probably should defend topical action by the USFG. I can be convinced otherwise but the aff should articulate its offense well and why the T version of the aff does not access most/all of their offense. I think fairness arguments are highly persuasive, and especially reasons why fairness should precede education.

Have fun and enjoy the debate! It’s awesome that you’re in this activity, I love it, and really hope you do too. If you have any questions, feel free to email me at katiecarithers@gmail.com