Russell,+Kristyn

Kristyn Russell

I debated at a small high school in Northeast Kansas for four years, Kansas City Kansas Community College for two years, and I’m currently at the University of Missouri in Kansas City.

You should do what you do best. With that being said, I hope the following helps you.

General Affirmative Beliefs: You should be topical or at the very least, explain the relation of your arguments to the topic in an advantageous manner.

Theory: I thoroughly enjoy good, competitive theory debates. I don’t have many predispositions in relation to counterplan/ alternative theory. Please don’t read your theory blocks as fast as possible if you want me to flow your arguments. Don’t rely on said blocks to win you the round; be responsive and interactive at all levels of a theory debate if you’d like it to become a voting issue. I won’t vote on potential abuse, I’d like to see an articulated impact that warrants a ballot.

Topicality/ Framework: Topicality is a voting issue, never a reverse voting issue. Framework is a gateway argument. Again, I won’t vote on potential abuse, I’d like to see an articulated impact that warrants a ballot. I typically default to competing interpretations if there are no other arguments made as to how I should evaluate. I generally believe that theory, topicality, and framework are a priori issues.

Case: I think that more negative teams should utilize smart case arguments. By this, I mean well thought-out case turns/ offense. I don’t think I’ve ever voted negative on case D at the end of a debate. Impact turning the AFF has always sparked my interest. I should also say here that if you want to backfile check the affirmative team, I’m probably a good judge for you.

Disads: I like them. I like them more when they turn case and/or act as good external net benefits to a counterplan. The only argument that I’m not too incredibly hip on is politics. With that being said, I still understand the strategic importance of this disad in debates.

Counterplans: I like them. Anything is fair game in front of me.

Criticisms: I like them a lot. They should have strategic placement in a debate with specific links to the AFF and warranted analysis on how my ballot functions in relation to the alternative. Please do not read authors out of context or poorly execute complicated theories. Please take time to weigh impacts and articulate a good framing of how said impacts should be evaluated. I hate Baudrillard.

Side Thoughts: Perm do both is not severance. Are politics disads perm-able? I think so. Independent voters, cheap shots or not, are still voters. Is the human race destructive to the universe? Possibly! Is the ice age coming? I don’t know, let’s talk about it. Ward Churchill is crazy, but entertaining. The same cannot be said about Baudrillard. He is just crazy. Jokes about Chief are **always** hilarious. I don’t like unnecessarily offensive language. Sexism, racism, homophobia and anything else that is purposely hateful and exclusive isn’t funny. Ever. Be nice to each other.

Personally: I read a lot. I’m particularly well-read and interested in feminist literature. In debates, I’ve found myself on the far-left spectrum of argumentation more often than not; music, performance, graphic pornography, costumes, whatever. With that being said, I’ve also deployed straight-up topical cases and given a fair share of 2NR’s going for topicality, counterplan/disads, case turns and politics.

Dabait.