Goldman,+Julia

Rowland Hall '14 George Washington University '18 Strikes: Rowland Hall

In high school I was the 2N/1A for the first 3 years, I was the 2A/1N my senior year and in college.

tldr: You do you. I will do whatever I can to evaluate what you give me.

People I think similarly to/shaped how I debate -- Mike Shackelford, Greg Zoda, Brian Rubaie, Tasha Jhangiani

Debate is a game, but unlike a lot of other activities there aren't a lot of set rules. This is your activity so I think that you should make it what you want it to be. The rest of this is how I have viewed debate in the past but my opinions are constantly changing, and I've found myself enjoying both policy v. policy and k v. k rounds. Prep time and other logistical things - Prep ends when the flashdrive leaves the computer. I believe that clipping is a serious problem in the community and if there's an ethics challenge presented I will immediately stop the round and evaluate the recording (I'm abiding by the NDCA guidlines on clipping to determine if there has been a violation). If I conclude that the team has in fact clipped it will be an automatic loss and 0 speaker points. I never thought I would have to say this but when you start the timer I expect the next either 8 or 5 minutes to be filled with you talking, in otherwords you cannot take prep in the middle of the speech.

Things about me – I don’t like calling for cards because I believe that evidence should only be given the weight in decisions that they were given in the round. That means that if you tell me to vote on a specific piece of evidence but don’t explain it you shouldn't be surprised when I don’t evaluate the 17 awesome warrants in the card that you didn't talk about.

T – I think this can be a good option and I love watching these debates when they’re done well. That being said, I think you need to have either in round abuse or very specific potential abuse. Why should I care if you don’t get the spending DA? Do you lose critical CP ground? Why do things like ground and fairness matter? Those things are just internal links to impacts so make sure that you win why your rules for debate are good.

Theory – A lot of what I said about T applies here. I probably err aff on CP theory and neg on things like conditionality. That being said 2 condo are fine, 3 can be ok if they don’t conflict and 4 is pushing it but anything can be justified.

Case debate - When done well this can win the round for either team. I believe that impacts can be reduced to zero risk or negligible risk. Sidenote: I really love well done hege debates because this is essentially what I'm studying in college.

DAs – Aff-specific links and external impacts are key here. Impact framing is key and I think a strong DA paired with an advantage CP and some case defense is a great strategy.

CPs – The more specific the better. I can go either way on competition. I tend to err aff on cheating CPs and I need a strong competition story, otherwise the 2A that sits on the perm is going to do pretty well.

Ks – Often one of the best options, I find that whichever team talks about the aff the most is usually the one that wins. For example, let’s say the aff reads a heg aff and the neg read Baudrillard’s critique of power. Instead of reading generic Baudrillard indicts, the aff should defend their epistemology and knowledge production. On the other side, the neg should make turns case args and not just throw around jargon. I’ve read a lot of the lit so there is a good chance that I know what you’re talking about. That being said, my prior knowledge doesn’t mean that I expect a lower level of explanation. I think you need specific links to the 1AC, not just to the resolution as a whole. I also differ from some judges in that I don’t think that you necessarily need an alt to win the K because if you win the K you have presented a reason the aff is bad so they should lose. Given that, I think to win that debate when you're neg you need to win a framing where only things in the round matter rather than just the fiated implications of the plan. You should note that it will be very hard for you to get me to vote on an aff framework interpretation that says that there shouldn't be ks in debate.

K affs – I have read everything from heg affs to affs without a plan text. I think that the aff should probably be related to the resolution in some way but I can be convinced otherwise. I think that you need some type of more concrete impact. I feel like a lot of K affs assert something like “cap is bad” or “conventional knowledge production is bad,” but that idea is never totally explained and gets lost in pure theory. Make sure you use your K tricks well and do what you want.

I feel the need to add a small section on role of the ballots. I feel like a lot of teams confuse this with the method debate. Even if the other team concedes that I should vote for the team that best does whatever it is that your aff does I still believe that if they have offense against your method that's an implicit reason why your role of the ballot is bad. Essentially I find self serving ROBs annoying and probably won't give them a lot of weight in the round.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">Framework – This can be a good strategy against affs that say nothing or do nothing. I often find myself believing the basis of framework arguments that limits are good and that the topic is good. The major problem I've seen in framework debates is that people assume that things like fairness and decision making skills are impacts in and of themselves. Instead, these things are internal links to things like education. Tell me what you’re going to do with your decision making skills and why we can only get them in debate; otherwise, I’ll be easily swayed by a 2AR that gets up and says that something like decision making is inevitable. I also find that many people don't have a specific defense of their limits or their view of debate which is where the team reading fw generally runs into trouble. When you’re aff against framework I generally think that impact turning is the way to go and that calling out an impact-light 2NR is the easiest route to victory.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">Speaking style and other random things – <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">I've found that my speaks tend to range from 27.6-28.9 with most debaters falling between 28-28.4.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">Don’t talk down to people but I appreciate sassiness. I want to hear the text of your cards __//**not just the tags**//__ otherwise __//**your speaks will suffer**//__. Efficiency is measured in arguments per minute not words per minute. I reward good technical work and good strategies. It also may help you to know that I'm studying international affairs with a focus in economics and security policy, and gender studies in college. My school is also in DC which means that I'm surrounded by the federal government at all times. Do what you will with that information.

You may or may not receive a small speaker point bump if you make Elliot Kovnick or Jaden Lessnick jokes