Marshall,+Katie

I'm a freshman debater for the University of Georgia and I debated for 4 years at Calhoun High School. If you have any questions that aren't answered here, email me at katiemarshall24@gmail.com

I like debate. It should be fun. You should be nice. If you're offensive, you should probably lose. Just sayin'. I also like laughing. If you make me laugh, your speaker points will reflect that. Lane Bearden and Jadon Marianetti taught me in my most formative years of debate, so my preferences are very similar to theirs. Impact turns are probably my favorite arg. Flowing... its a good thing. Do it. Don't cheat. You'll lose.
 * General:**

I've read everything from a heg good affs, to no plan affs with poems and meditating in round.. do what you're good at and I'll listen!

I really, really love T. However, I think debaters should treat it as a disad aka do comparative impact calculus. The impact debate is important as always! I default to competing interpretations but can be convinced otherwise; please put some effort into your reasonability arguments. Compare the two competing worlds of debate! If you’re neg I want to see a case list and a topical version of the aff.
 * T:**

**Theory:** Usually a reason to reject the arg, not the team. {But I can be persuaded otherwise.} Unless its condo.. I think anything more than 2 advocacies is probably a reason to reject the team. Like T, I default to competing interps - compare the world of the aff vs world of the neg, yada yada. And slow down - I flow as much as I can, but I'm not perfect.

Solid strat. The link is important and I do believe in zero risk of a disad aka absent a link. I debate for UGA so politics are definitely a thing, however, I don't read the disad much, but I'm willing to vote on it if that's ya thing. Ev comparison is of utmost important - do lots of it.
 * Disads:**

I'm fairly familiar with critical lit and go for the K pretty frequently.. but don't read a K and expect me to vote for you. If anything, I'll hold you to a higher standard. Contextualize the link to the 1ac and don't just read prewritten blocks. Application is key. If there are comparable impacts to that of the aff, treat it like a disad - outweighs, turns case, yada yada. I'll listen to anything, but the further left you go, the more you should explain. Affs - don't let the neg characterize your aff. Read framework and win that you should weigh your aff. Tell me what the role of the ballot is, what my role as the judge is, and how I should evaluate the round.
 * Kritiks:**

They are good. I like them a lot. But have an articulated NB..otherwise I'll give the aff a lot of leverage on the permutation debate. Process CPs and consult CPs are probably illegit, however, I love PICs.. like a lot.
 * CPs:**

I enjoy these arguments because I do think that this debate space is pretty exclusionary to certain forms of thinking/being. Tell me what I'm voting for and don't be shady if you don't defend a plan text/advocacy statement. I'm sympathetic to the opposing side when they attempt to clash aka counter kritiks or counter advocacies. But I'll listen to framework if that's the way you roll, too.. could easily go either way.
 * Non-traditional teams:**

If you don't transcend, idk why you debate. [cam henderson]