Hopkins,+Hayley

Hayley Hopkins Dunwoody High School '13 Northwestern '17

I'm a sophomore at Northwestern and I debated four years for Dunwoody High School in Georgia. I have not judged many rounds on the high school topic.

I’m fine with anything; just do what you are most comfortable with. I’m pretty technical and definitely believe that tech is superior to truth. These are some of my general preferences but I can obviously be persuaded otherwise. Ask me before the round if you would like to know anything else.

Impact calculus is necessary- you need to tell me how to prioritize impacts at the end of the round. For most theoretical objections, I generally default to rejecting the argument not the team. Absent in round discussion, I do not default to kicking the CP/alt.

Policy strategies: Impact interactions (turns case, if the aff turns the DA, etc) are persuasive for decision making. Impact solvency deficits in terms of the net benefit.

Kritiks: Debate the link to a K in terms of the aff- for example, sweeping generalizations of security discourse are less persuasive than contextualizing the kritik in terms of the 1AC. Explain to me the role of the ballot and how your impacts interact. I'm generally fairly moderate with framework; it will be difficult to persuade me that the aff does not get to weigh their off OR that the neg does not get a kritik.

I’m not the best judge for performance affs and generally find framework persuasive if you do not attempt to interact substantively with the resolution.

Topicality: I’m not the best judge for this. I tend to default to reasonability and think that the neg needs to not only prove that their interpretation is better than the aff’s, but also that the aff’s interpretation of the topic is bad. I need a clear view of the topic under your interpretation and an impacted debate of your standards.