Kelberg,+Miriam

I debated four years of LD at Apple Valley, MN and graduated in 2013.

I have a significant preference for debates that are concentrated on core topic literature and policymaking. Quality statistical and empirical evidence with comparison will gain you speaker points. Regardless of your approach to the topic, you must clearly develop your ballot story.

I default to a comparative worlds framework. But if an alternate interpretation is justified in round then I’ll use that instead. Just make sure you’re clear as to what I am supposed to vote on, and why it means you win the round. The clearer the ballot story is, the more likely I will vote for you.
 * Decision Calculus: **

**Framework:** Your arguments must link to a standard in order for me to vote off of them. It doesn’t matter if it’s a value/criterion structure or burden/standard/whatever, as long as it tells me which arguments matter. Try to keep the framework debate as clear as possible.

**Theory:** I default to competing-interpretations. Please only run theory in front of me if there is clear abuse and be very explicit in terms of the function of your theory arguments. Theory must be in shell form for me to vote on it. Also, if you choose to make pre-emptive theory arguments in constructives, the exact phrasing of your interp should appear somewhere in the case. That way when you get up in the 1AR and extend the argument/read a shell, I will know exactly what you are talking about.

Be clear and do not go top circuit speed. I can understand most debaters, but I much prefer a quick debate to a ridiculously fast one. It will benefit you to not go top speed, particularly when explaining the implications of arguments. Your speed should also vary depending on the type of argument you are running. If you are running a pretty clear util framework with some empirical evidence, you can go a lot faster. But if you are running some complex meta-ethics or critical arguments, assume I don’t have knowledge of the authors and slow down.
 * Speed: **

While I think that critical arguments can be very good, if the argument is really only designed to be incredibly convoluted and confusing, I don’t want to see it. I think that some of the best critical arguments are very straightforward. When running these types of positions, be as clear as possible. That means reading at a slower than normal rate if its complex (this only applies if you are a very fast debater normally), explaining how different arguments interact, and why winning the K wins the round. Don’t assume that calling it a K means it’s magically a prerequisite to everything else.
 * Critical Arguments: **

I will not accept advocacies or frameworks that say that suffering, rape, genocide, etc. are good.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask before the round!