Sergent-Leventhal,+Mimi

PLEASE CHECK TABROOM - ALL UPDATES WILL GO THERE

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=&search_last=sergent-leventhal

Affiliation: Harker School Conflicts: Edina High School

Background: I debated 4 years at Edina High School in Minnesota and currently debate for UC Berkeley.

I'll work hard to evaluate the round based only on the arguments presented. Everything below should be considered a bias that can be overridden through good debating.

Top level: - Absolute defense is possible - I will not default to calling cards - this is a response to a team challenging the quality of evidence or my inability to resolve an argument without looking at them - status quo > aff > 2NR advocacy is a reason to vote aff - I default to rejecting the argument on theory questions - Arguments consist of a claim and a warrant

Theory/Topicality: I think people are too concerned with more limits and not concerned enough with good limits.

Counterplans: I really don't like "judge kick". CPs that do the entirety of the aff/result in the entirety of the aff are likely not competitive.

Ks: Specificity is important on both sides.

Advantages/Disadvantages: It is possible to have zero risk of offense. I would much rather fewer good cards be read than more bad cards!

Affs that don't defend the resolution: I would have a difficult time voting for an affirmative that doesn't defend the resolution if framework were competently extended by the neg.

Misc: - The one exception to "my biases can be overridden" is being a jerk - please don't be mean!

I have coached LD for a year now, but I am not very familiar with it and I evaluate LD debates much like I would policy debates. That means: 1. You will have a hard time convincing me that plans are bad. I understand that in LD they may not always be necessary, especially given the wording of many topics. 2. My default is to compare the world of the aff to the world of the neg (which means negs would be strongly helped by having offense). If that is not how you want me to view my decision, please clearly articulate and alternative. 3. I generally believe utilitarianism is good and imagine what the world would look like if the aff/neg happend/was true. I'm willing to consider things differently, but you should make that into a developed, persuasive argument. 4. I think the move to make every debate into a theory debate is, frankly, terrible. I understand that the aff is in a tough spot, but that is a reason to build better, more responsive 1ac's, not craft inane theory arguments. Disgruntlement aside, I will try to objectively evaluate even awful theory debates. But understand that I will have a hard time voting against someone on a theoretical objection if you have not proven they made the debate very difficult or impossible to win. Theoretical objections to the way the aff has affirmed the rez or the way the negative has advanced advocacies (counterplans / kritiks) make much more sense to me than theoretical arguments about other things.
 * For LD ** (copied mostly from Sarah Weiner):