Wexler,+Emma

Affiliations: debated for The Blake School for four years in policy debate (qualled twice), LD assistant coach for Holy Cross Academy, assistant policy coach for Rhode Island Urban Debate League.

I debated on a team that swung both very policy and very K debate. I've run all kinds of arguments and affs (hard right, soft left, no plan, etc).

- Speech times and the speaks I assign are non-negotiable.

- Arguments are fully-fleshed out claim, warrant, and impact. --spread or don't but be clear when you're reading a tag versus evidence. --If somebody says something offensive or just plain ridiculous, cover your bases and still explain out why its problematic (this goes back to the fully-fleshed out argumentation). --comparative claims, impact analysis, and turns case is your friend and definitely the key to winning my ballot --good analytics/arguments/empirics can replace or slay a bad piece of evidence --Tech determines truth and not the other way around. -- If you're reading a fire piece of evidence, it not only your job to call my attention to this card but also explain why its so good/warrants/evidence within it. --I love it when teams ACTUALLY read the other team's evidence (probably the best, most specific and all-around devastating) -- I'm fairly expressive. You could use it to your advantage. --Treat everybody with respect.
 * Basics: **

- All kinds of affs are good, run what you want to. - Internal links are important, debaters should exploit this more. - Attacks on solvency are under-utilized. Specifics should come before generic impact defense. - Analytics are frequently more persuasive than reading large quantities of poor-quality evidence. - Zero risk of aff is possible. - If the aff team cannot explain what their aff does/why I should vote for it, then I'm sympathetic to presumption.
 * Aff's: **

--Both sides need to have a coherent explanation of what debate is/why we are here/etc. (Is it a game? A pedagogical space? A place to do transformative politics? Some combination or neither? Let me know. ) - Internal links and impacts are different. - I've debated on both sides of the issue many times--50/50 -- Insisting on calling it "topicality" is a pet peeve of mine.
 * FW: **

- The more specific the DA the better it is. - Turns case analysis is a must - Contrived DA's can be taken out with quick internal link indicts. Usually the evidence is either quite bad or can be cut the other way.
 * DA's: **

- Consult, delay, and other questionably cheaty counterplans can be beat with theory. Unfortunately aff teams frequently get too spread out from the block and neglect that portion of the debate. - PIC's work well with a solid net benefit as long as you actually PIC out of a substantial portion of the aff. - I won't judge-kick unless A) I'm expressly told to by the 2NR and B) the 2AR's response is lacking. - I like process CP's with solvency advocates. If you don't have carded solvency, it is still winnable but much less persuasive. - You should make sufficiency framing arguments. - Presumption goes aff if you go for a CP in the 2NR. - Word PIC's aren't very persuasive unless the aff makes arguments about why rhetoric is important.
 * CP's: **

--go slow on that block of text - Line by line dictates how these debates go down so be careful with technical drops. - Usually reject the arg not the team is sufficient. --not a fan of reading theory or pursuing RVIs for its own sake, but
 * Theory: **

- Go slower on explanations, I can only write so fast. - In round abuse claims are persuasive. (e.g.,. The aff no-linking a DA through un-topical action). - Limits claims on both sides are very persuasive.
 * T: **

- I ran a lot of Ks but that doesn't mean I'm familiar with every tiny K lit niche. --Good K debaters know not only their lit bases, but also have the ability to explain the K without buzzwords. Explain it however you want in round but if you can't explain it in a series of very small basic sentences you probably don't know the K well enough. -There must be some discussion of the alt if you're going for the K in the 2NR--whether that's you explaining why the alt is great or why you don't actually need an alt doesn't matter to me.
 * K: **


 * Everything should be up to debate. Anything I have written above can be changed in round with solid debating. I obviously don't know or presume to know everything. Email me with questions emma.wexler15@gmail.com **