Horst,+Christine

Christine Horst Associations: Lane Tech High School, Northside College Prep (both Chicago Public Schools) Bachelor's Degree: Northwestern University I coached and judged for Lane Tech for five years. The past year I have been mostly involved in the tournament operations side of debate (tabbing, organizing the logistics of a tournament, running a city debate camp) and have judged for Northside College Prep at all tournaments this year (including all major midwest bid tournaments.)

Short Version of Everything Below: Everything you say and extend should have a warrant. Line- by-line should include a comparison of the evidence (warrants, authors, descriptive v proscriptive, quality) in addition to the fact that the card answers what your opponent said. Impact each argument. Give me a reason to care that you just spent 15 seconds extending that card. I would prefer a policy round, but I will vote on any argument as long as long as it is explained sufficiently and impacted.

Disads: I generally will vote for teams that have better comparative impact analysis (i.e. they take into account their opponents’ arguments in their analysis.) I cannot stress that point enough. It is written in at least 4 places in this philosophy. There needs to be comparative analysis. I think it is difficult for the aff to win no risk of the DA happening (as long as the negative answers all the aff args). When I debated, I was a 2N and I went for a CP and P-Tix in most rounds. Intrinsicness- I really hate this argument. Very little neg theory on this is required. That being said, I have voted aff multiple times on intrinsicness.

Counter-plans: The only rules are that the CP should be competitive and have a net benefit. The net benefit can be an entire disad or a solvency deficit. I am not bias against any CP. I am more persuaded by theoretical arguments against a specific type of CP than I am to status theory. Framework: Absent any discussion of framework by the debaters, I default to a consequentialist and policy-making framework. Given framework, I will vote under any framework you provide me. I will evaluate framework prior to any other off-case arguments that it might affect (everything but topicality and theory) so if either team’s framework excludes the other, you have to win your interpretation or meet you opponents in order to be able to weigh your impacts.

Kritiks: The framework stuff above is important to how I evaluate the K. In general, the world of the alternative needs to look different than the Status Quo. The aff needs to have some ground (the world post-alt) to attack. I am swayed by realism so neg will need to do a little more work on this to prove their alt will solve the link.

Topicality: I dislike having to vote on T, but only because it is usually sloppy. If you make it clear (possibly provide a neg block overview and then actually go line-by-line on the 2AC args), I have absolutely no problem voting on T. I think potential abuse is just as bad as in-round abuse. I prefer a competing interpretations debate because I do believe it decreases judge intervention. Affs will have to do a little more work if they want to win reasonability arguments, but I usually default to the aff on T if I think the neg standards are poorly articulated or impacted which is why if the 2NR is going to go for T, they should do so for 5 minutes.

Theory: Clash is important. Impacts of each sub-point should be compared to the opponent’s impacts. I do not evaluate each sub-point as an independent voter. For both T and theory, there a structure (the same as any other argument). It follows whoever spoke second.

Procedural/ Structural Issue:Tag team is cool. No prep for flashing (but don't make it excessive). Partner cannot be typing things while the other team is flashing. CX starts precisely the second after the speaker finishes their last word unless I am specifically told by a team that they wish to take prep before CX. Either way, time will be running: prep or CX. Paperless does not mean you get 15 seconds of free time to ask, "Did you read the X card?" Your flow should reflect what your opponents said. If you need to ask if they read a card, it is clarification questions and counts as CX time.

Speaker Points 24-25: Reserved for inappropriate conduct 26: Major tactical errors (dropping key args, poor clash or warranting, organization, argument relation/ strat conflicts, speech clarity) 27: Minor tactical errors 28: Problems with technique (embedded clash, comparative analysis, resolving micro-debates) Low 29s: Skillful technique High 29s: Nearly perfect speech (May have minor time allocation problems resulting in slightly undercovering 1-2 args but still maintained ability to resolve micro-debates/ put args into the larger context of the round.) 30: I literally cannot think of anything that could have been done better.