Lazarevic,+Mima

GBS '06, USC '10**
 * Mima Lazarevic

The first and foremost thing I will say is that you should debate the way that you want, read arguments that you enjoy going for, and you should not try and appease me by reading certain arguments unless they are something you go for anyway. Although I have my own predispositions about arguments, I will try my best to leave those out of the debates that I judge and I will evaluate debates as fairly as I can. That being said, often times I am forced to arbitrarily intervene when deciding debates because the last two rebuttals lack impact calculus and argument comparison. This is a position I do not like to be in, and it will help your points and chance of winning if you dedicate time in your last speech making comparative arguments and framing the debate holistically. The other important general comment I will make is that clarity goes a long way - I like speed but make sure you speak in such a way that is easy to understand you, otherwise I will give the other team leeway when answering arguments that were not made coherently on your part (and vise versa). Here are some other random points that may be of your interest: -Dropped arguments are not necessarily "round winners". Example - aff drops a DA and 2nr goes for the DA without any case arguments - I will probably vote aff because the case will more likely than not outweigh the DA. Obviously, if one team drops an argument, you will be ahead on that particular argument - this does NOT mean that you are ahead entirely. So, keep in mind that it's important that you frame the debate holistically when you extend arguments that the other team has dropped. -I tend to think tech over truth - this means that I will evaluate debates based on how each team debated, the arguments made on the flow, and the evidence read. I don't think it is necessarily fair for me to decide a debate based on what argument I think is true, especially if it was not debated at all - it also begs the question of what each of us considers to be "true" in the first place. Bottom line - if truth value is important to you, then make it an argument you can win on. Otherwise, I will evaluate the debate as objectively as I can based only on the arguments that were made. -Cross-X - I like listening to a good cx. Be smart, be funny, be amusing. I will definitely bump up speaker points if you have a good cx. -Although I have judged debates on this topic and have *some* experience with the literature base, you should assume that I'm not entirely familiar with all of your ultra-specific strategies/t violations/etc and so you should explain them well at some point in the debate.

-Framework: I think affs need to have a topical plan. Period. I think everything beyond this question is up for debate. -Topicality: While I prefer substantive debates over procedural/theory debates 99% of the time, I can be sympathetic to negative teams when they debate a non-topical aff, and I can also agree entirely with affs that the neg's interpretation is arbitrary. If you decide T is the way to go, make sure you remember to do impact calc about the standards (why limits outweighs ground, etc) just like you would in a substance debate. Oh yeah, I do not think that T is genocide, will lead to genocide, or is equivalent to the holocaust. That will be an uphill battle. -Case/DA: I enjoy watching these debates - the more specific the neg's arguments are, the better. -CP: Also great. 1NCs should not blaze through the CP text. Theory stuff - Conditionality - Good for the most part, but can be persuaded the other way. Dispo - Definitely good. PICs - Good. Consult - Probably not so good. Condition - Specificity is usually enough to make me think it's good. Otherwise, probably not so good. -Ks: They are good. I prefer specific links over generic ones, and a well explained alternative. I am not a fan of the floating PIC but lots of times negative teams get away with this anyway.

Good luck! Mima