Hou,+Stephanie

Debated for Des Moines Roosevelt (IA) on the national circuit with moderate success (two toc bid rounds).


 * Stuff below can be overridden by good debating

In general, tech > truth. Arguments need a claim and a warrant. Run what you like. I will judge how I'm told to judge.

Speed is fine, clarity is better. I'm rusty so it may be in your interest to slow down.
 * Speed**

I debated the K quite a bit my senior year and consider myself at least competently acquainted with most critique arguments, but explaining never hurts. If you're running a K aff, I think you should probably have a plan text.
 * Critiques/Performance/Project **

I don't have a lot of experience debating or judging performance and project. I have a hard time justifying an aff ballot if you don't defend the resolution, given the neg extends a compelling framework argument.

Counterplans should probably be textually and functionally competitive. I don't judge kick by default, so tell me if you want me to.
 * Counterplans**

Theory debates usually end up being throw away arguments, but please try to keep it clean. Severence and intrinsicness are probably bad. Condo is debatable. I default to rejecting the argument.
 * Theory**

I don't have any familiarity with the economic engagement topic so I don't know what the norms for topicality are. I like aff-specific T arguments, and find generic t arguments are not compelling. I tend to default to competing interpretations but am sympathetic to reasonability.
 * Topicality **

These made up most of my 1NRs. The link probably controls the direction of uniqueness. I like disad overviews, and your disad should probably turn case at some point. There is such thing as absolute defense. Politics may or may not be intrinsic.
 * Disads**

Feel free to ask any questions.