Pauli,+Amy

I debated in policy for the University of Wyoming for 5 years and for two years in high school. I was by the end of my career what I consider to be a "flex" debater in that in any given round I could go for politics, the Cap K, Irigaray, or heg good/bad impact turns. I read a K aff a few times throughout my career but for the most part defended a plan.

The most important thing is that __I don't believe that arguments should be rejected out of hand on the basis of ideological proclivities__. As a debater I was very discouraged by the thought of being judged by someone who wouldn't give my arguments a fair listen, which sometimes resulted me in having to go for positions I wasn't comfortable with. It is my goal as I embark on my judging career to be very transparent with those that I judge about my argument history but also to make it clear that you should do what you want/what is most strategic. Students should be aware, however, that I am about to graduate with a degree in Gender & Women's Studies.

My inclination is that the affirmative should be germane to and in the direction of the resolution. I think it becomes very difficult to be negative if the aff does less than that. That being said, I will not auto-drop you if you read a K aff that doesn't fill those requirements and someone reads T/Framework. I will vote on impact turns to Framework/T.

__Politics:__ I started my career on the politics disad and tend to love them. Unfortunately, the climate for politics has not been hot all semester so I am likely sympathetic to an aff's claims of "This is not a D/A" and would be comfortable voting on zero risk. HOWEVER, I love the politics d/a and think it is an important form of education.

__Other disads:__ Please!

__Counterplans:__ I was a 2N so I likely lean neg on theory. This means that most theory arguments are probably a reason to reject the counterplan, not the team. There is not type of counterplan you could read that would cause an auto-loss in front of me or a large loss in speaker points. The aff would still have to advance and win an impacted theory argument for me to reject the counterplan. If the neg says the status quo is always a logical option, I will kick the counterplan if the neg loses the theory debate. I will not kick the counterplan if the neg doesn't instruct me to do so.

__Conditionality:__ I don't have a specific threshold for what qualifies as too many conditional worlds. I think it is possible for me to be convinced that too many conditional worlds is a reason to reject the team. I think being neg is really difficult and should get to test the aff at multiple levels. I also think that if someone is reading 9 off [especially in high school] it is physically impossible for them to be reading well developed arguments that won't require a lot of expansion in the block, meaning that the aff should exploit the internal link chain holes in the 2AC in front of such a large 1NC. This also probably means the aff gets a lot of new 1AR answers and new developments in the 2AR.

__Case:__ I think a lot of affs get away with murder with respect to what counts as an internal link in an advantage. That means if you're neg EXPLOIT THESE. I am more than willing to vote on presumption.

__Ks__: I will be honest that the only k's I am "familiar" with are Irigaray, Cap, and arguably Foucauldian biopolitics. I of course debated against the whole gambit of Ks and so have likely come across what you are saying before. I also debated many "identity"/"peformance". I even read an "identity" aff once. If your performance/criticism of the debate community/etc. advocates a specific methodology/strain of theory that I can latch on to, you're fine in front of me. I do not think that opponents of a particular team should lose a debate because someone else in the community did something that was inappropriate/awful. I also do not care for the trend that I witnessed at the end of this year where neg teams rejected the idea of having to compete with an aff because a particular ill has occurred to them in the community. Those cases of poor community conduct can be powerful and persuasive examples, but I need some sort of stasis point/method that can solve those ills rather than just voting for you because the ballot is a form of currency in our community.

__T:__ Always a voting issue.