Saucier,+Celine

Name: Celine Saucier Affiliation: H. H. Dow High School, Sophomore at the University of Michigan Rounds judged on the current topic – 30-35

I think the most important thing is that you debate what you feel most comfortable with. While I mainly debated the counterplan/disad strategy throughout high school and in college, I am pretty open to whatever arguments you want to present. I have judged at the University of Michigan Camp Tournament, and several instate Michigan tournaments as well as coaching for HH Dow High in Michigan.


 * Topicality** – I evaluate T in terms of competing interpretations. I feel like T should be about whose interpretation creates the best world for debate. Impact calculus/comparisons are also really important.


 * Kritiks** – I’m an engineering major, not a philosophy expert. That being said, I did run the K some in high school and college, and I do regularly vote on it. Be warned that I am not familiar with all the kritik literature, and just repeating K buzzwords won’t cut it. In general, I think that framework is critical in determining how to compare the aff against the K. While I rarely think that the alt will actually do anything, I usually end up voting on the K because the affirmative fails to answer damning arguments like alt solves the case or K impacts turn the aff.


 * Disads** – I’m a big fan. When answering a DA, the affirmative should always have both good offense AND defense arguments. Impact calculus is also really important. You should also be doing evidence comparisons. Arguments like DA outweighs the case are a good idea because they help me weigh the impacts of the disad against the advantages.


 * Counterplans** – also good. I like specific counterplans. PICs are good. Advantage counterplans are good. Consult, probably not so good, there is a greater risk I will vote these down if the aff is doing a good job on theory. Negatives also need to make sure to address any solvency deficits to the counterplan in their impact calculus.


 * Theory** - In general, theory arguments are more compelling when there is proven in round abuse. I have found that most theory debates tend to get very messy very fast. If you want to go for theory, make sure that you are doing analysis, impacting your arguments and not just rereading your blocks. More specifically, conditionality and dispositional are pretty much the same to me, and they are both probably good. PICs are also good. 50 state fiat and consult on the other hand, probably bad. I also think A through Z Spec arguments are annoying and not very educational. While these are my preferences, they will not determine how I evaluate the argument in the round.

Finally, be nice and have fun!