Pismarov,+Vivienne

 **__*I feel like this should be obvious, but do not clip cards or miscut cards in the middle of paragraphs - I have now judged 4/9 debates where I have had to deal with ethics violations and I am no longer down*__**

In terms of comments about this topic, I don't think many affs are T at all, but you still need to define a clear caselist of affs you allow and why your model of debate is better. This does not mean I am biased for T right now, I just think if executed, T can be a good strategy in front of me.

__Experience:__ I debated for 4 years at Notre Dame in CA (2011-2015) and I currently debate at the University of San Francisco. Coached for Notre Dame for 3 years and at CKM for 1 year

__General Notes__: 1. I am definitely very, very flow oriented. That being said, to have a full argument you need to make a claim, warrant, and impact. If those things aren't there, I'd rather not do the work for you and simply reward the team that did. 2. Other than that, you do you. I'm down to listen to anything you want to talk about if you can defend it well. 3. I'm super easy to read. If I'm making faces, it's probably because I am confused or can't understand what you're saying. If I'm nodding, that is generally a good thing. 4. Be good people. There's nothing I hate more than people being unnecessarily rude. 5. There is always a risk of something, but a low risk is almost no risk in my mind when compared to something with a high risk. 6. I'll always prioritize good explanation of things over bad cards. If you don't explain things well and I have to read your evidence and your evidence sucks, you're in a tough spot. That being said, I would rather not call for cards, but if you think that there is a card that I simply //__need__// to read, then say so in your speech. 7. Tasteful jokes/puns are always accepted. They can be about anything/anyone (ie Jacob Goldschlag, Connor Chapkis, Caitlin Walrath, or Notre Dame folk) as long as its funny :)

__Topicality__: I love topicality debates because they're techy and force debaters to really explain what they are talking about in terms of impacts. That being said, 2nr's/2ar's really need to focus on the impact debate and explain to me why education is an impact or why I should prefer a limited topic over an unlimited one. Reasonability is debatable. I was a 2n in high school and I lean towards a more limited topic, but I'm very easily persuaded otherwise.

__K Aff's__: I am very convinced by most framework arguments on the negative side. I think that K aff's need to be closer to the resolution than not and I do not think that many of them are. However, this does not mean that I will not vote for a K aff; I just have had trouble understanding the proliferation of Baudrillard and Bataille affs, so if you are aff, you will definitely need to be doing a higher level of experience. I think Cap K's versus these aff's can be very persuasive, but I also think Framework makes a lot of sense if the aff isn't topical. That being said, do you and make smart args. I'm not the most literate in a lot of high-theory literature, so if you want to play that game in front of me, do it BUT explain your theories and I'll catch on quick.

__Framework__: I think that "traditional" framework debates fall prey to a big exclusion DA from the aff. I think we should be able to talk about K affs and that they should be included in the topic - HOWEVER I believe that K aff's do need to prove that they are topical in some way. I lean more towards the neg in framework debates because I do think that many K aff's have little to do with the topic, but there have been so many times when K aff's actually engage the topic in a great way. That being said, on the aff be closer to the resolution and on the neg, explain how your interpretation and model of debate interacts with the aff. Most teams forget that the aff will always try to weigh their impacts against framework, which sucks because it is hard to resolve real world impacts versus theoretical arguments about fairness and education.

__Theory__: I will most likely lean neg on most theory questions unless a CP is simply very, very abusive, but even those can be defended sometimes :)

__Disads__: I love disads, specifically the politics DA. Prioritize impact work! Despite my love for DA's, most of them are dumb and you can easily convince me that they are dumb even using analytics and indicting the neg's evidence. However, I still love DA's and wish I got to go for them more in high school. Good politics debates make me happy.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">__Counterplans__: Everything is debatable in terms of theory, so do you. If a CP is very abusive, hopefully the aff says so. If the aff concedes planks of your CP, you should make sure you say that. I think all CP's need a solvency advocate, otherwise it will be hard for the neg to win solvency and potentially theory.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">__Kritiks__: I really like the K when the link debate is specific and I can articulate a SPECIFIC link and reasons why the aff is bad. Fair warning - I am not the most literate in high-theory arguments. This doesn't mean I won't listen to your Baudrillard K's, but it means that I have a very high threshold for SPECIFIC links and also simple explaination of the argument since I will most likely be confused until you explain yourself. Teams need to explain what I need to prioritize first, whether that is epistemology, reps, framework, or whatever, just make sure you say so! I don't like overviews and I am a big believe in putting your link and impact work where it makes sense on the line by line because it will always make sense somewhere.