Kirsch,+Sara

I debated at Wylie E. Groves High School, and Michigan State University. I currently am the director of debate at Traverse City Central High School (Traverse City, Mi). I have previously coached at Brother Rice High School, Wylie E. Groves High School, and Lexington High School. Also, I have previously instructed at the SDI, MNDI, and the Traverse City Central Debate Camp.

Paperless Debate: I have no problems with paperless debate. Flashing doesn't count as prep, but if you are very slow repeitively, it will impact speaker points.

Theory: In general, counterplan theory is a reason to reject the argument not the team. The exception to this is usually conditionality, but in any case if you are going for theory as a reason to reject the team there must clearly impacted reasons.

Topicality: Is a game of competing interpretations. I don't think reasonability is a persuasive aff argument on its own. If a team has a well developed we meet argument, and/or a "reasonable" counter interpretation with some offensive arguments, I am more likely to err aff.

DA's: I LOVE THEM, DO IT! I am a huge fan of the politics disads, case turns, and other topic disads. Impact calculus and turns the case arguments that are carded or not are highly encouraged. I appreciate smart turns the case applications of 1nc impacts if they are logical or true.

Politics Theory: I HATE IT. I am highly neg leaning on these questions. I will likely only vote on arguments such as fiat solves the link, intrinsicness, and vote no if they are completely conceded. A dropped argument is a true argument, even on politics disads :(

Counterplans: I do believe that there should be a limit to what counterplans can fiat, but that limit is up for debate.

Kritiks: While I greatly favor policy debate to general K debates when I am judging, if a team wins key arguments/big picture issues they should win the debate. I try my best to not let my personal argument preferences interfere with judging. I am more persuaded during K debates when there are with specific link arguments, and clear impact calc/turns the case analysis.

Other things:

*Dropped arguments =true arguments. If they are explained once, for instance a dropped plank to a counter-plan in the 2nc, the 2nr doesn't need to spend a lot of 2nr time re-explaining.

* Aspec - to run this argument, you must ask in CX who the agent of the plan is. Only if the aff doesn't give a specific answers should this be in the round. If you do specify your agent, you must debate the merits of an agent counterplan rather than theory. If the negative doesn't ask in CX, 1 answer is sufficient to answer this arg, CX checks.

* Critical Affs - If you read a plan, you must defend the plan. If you don't read a plan, don't pref me. Though I think there should be a plan, I am fine with K's of DAs, and debates about how impacts should be weighed.

If you have any questions, feel free to email me Skirsch89@gmail.com