Bloodgood,+Rhianon

Bloodgood, Rhianon

Debated for Huron High School, 2007-2011. Some Lincoln Douglas and some Public Forum during first three years. Policy senior year. One year of high school judging. Currently the Vice President of University of South Dakota's Speech and Debate Team.
 * Background**:

I think of myself as a stock issue judge and enjoy the importance of a strong affirmative case, but if there is something that you believe I should vote on, let me know and I might take it into consideration.
 * General**:

I'm okay with speed as long as the I am given a clear tag and signpost. Make sure I know where, on the flow, you are making the argument and that I can understand it clearly, BUT don't let your speed get out of hand.
 * Speed**:

I see the topic like A. Hamilton saw the constitution, Broad. Unless you can specify why they are not being topical then I may not agree with you. Some Ts limit the grounds that both teams may argue, so always make sure that those grounds can be deemed even and fair. Do not spend your entire speech on topicality unless you are one hundred percent sure that you will win with it. If your speech only entails topicality and no arguments on the case then I believe you don't have the knowledge to debate the resolution. In the end, I can vote for and against topicality.
 * Topicality**:

I love a case debate. The main thing I enjoyed about policy was all of the information you acquired on the resolution. Gaining that amount of knowledge should lead you to be able to debate both sides easily. If you do not seem to have the knowledge to debate the case then you are not convincing me that I should be voting in your favor.
 * Case**:

I enjoy unique disads as long as they are explained well, make sure you understand and can easily convey why the disad would occur and what links it specifically to that case. If the link can fall through, it most likely will. Alongside the disad, impact calculations are very important. Explain to me why your impacts are far worse/better.
 * Disadvantages**:

I can follow a counterplan as long as it is assumed necessary. Convince me why it would be a better choice than the affirmative's plan of action. If you plan to use a topical counterplan, don't. If the affirmative is not topical you should be able to win by arguing case and topicality.
 * Counter Plans**:

I've never been the best with critiques, but if you can convey the correct message to me, as your judge, I will listen. If you do not understand the critique yourself, don't assume that I should have knowledge of it.
 * Critiques (K)**:

I do very well at keeping bias out of the round and sticking to what is happening the the room and debate currently. I will listen to most everything as long as it is clear, concise, and understood by you as well.
 * Summary**:

Look forward to seeing you in round. If you have questions about anything, feel free to ask.