Resar,+Alyssa


 * McDonogh '15 **
 * Harvard '19 **


 * Note:** I worked at the SDI this summer, but I haven't judged since - make sure you slow down and explain arguments that are heavy in acronyms or surveillance specific jargon.

The words you say and the ideas you put forth are meaningful. I value wit, strategic vision, clarity, (and sass, of course...).

I think this can change depending on the debate, but in general I am more swayed by well-communicated arguments of low evidence quality than by poorly explained arguments of high evidence quality.

I am open to any argument and consider myself pretty well versed in both policy and critical literature. That being said, I would //rather// adjudicate, say, a debate about case and the politics DA than a debate about a high theory K and a no-plan aff.

I like smart PIC’s and advantage counterplans, case-specific disads, and politics. Case debating is important. I love a good topicality debate.

I am not very impressed by generic critiques or process counterplans.

I would find it difficult to vote for an aff that does not defend a topical plan versus a competently extended framework violation.

When I debated, I adored cross-x and will pay attention to yours.