Gehling,+Kate

Wayzata High School '15 Harvard University '19

__**Quick notes**__ --Do what you do best, don't completely change your arguments because of me, etc. --There’s a difference between being aggressive and being mean – don’t do the latter or speaker points will suffer --Case debate is VERY important – please read more than impact defense --Cheap shots are usually not voters because they usually do not have a warrant or evidence -- in rare circumstances when they do, I default to tech over truth --If you have to go for generics, here's what I like from most to least: politics and case, impact turns, PIC with internal net benefit, topic T violation, topic K, politics and process CP --Prep time ends when the flashdrive leaves your computer or the email is sent. Include me on email chains: kate.gehling1@gmail.com --2ARs go for way too much -- pick your best offense and spend more time developing it --Both sides need to do a better job explaining the different worlds when a CP is in play -- if it doesn't solve do I kick it? stick the neg with it? can the aff advocate a perm? how do turns on the net benefit interact? etc --Impact calculus is surprisingly absent in many rebuttals

__**Specifics**__
 * Topicality** –
 * Plan affs**: I like it. Limits usually outweigh and access education. I think core of the topic/big stick affs will win on reasonability/overlimiting. Explaining which affs each interp includes/excludes is one of the biggest considerations -- what is your vision of the topic and how is it different from theirs? I don't think that "legal precision" is very important. Pay more attention to the internal link than impact debate – I’m unlikely to vote on the “people will quit debate if this aff is topical” argument.
 * Non-plan affs**: I believe the affirmative should defend the hypothetical implementation of the resolution and a solid extension of framework will almost always win my ballot. I find fairness + topical version of the aff the most compelling neg ballot. The aff should clearly label disads to the neg's interpretation that are specific to the aff. Role of the ballots are often arbitrary and don't mean anything.


 * CP** – I’m aff leaning on competition but that doesn't mean these debates are unwinnable for the neg. Topic literature and solvency advocates largely determine what is a predictable and competitive CP. My predispositions on CP theory--
 * Good**: PICs, international fiat, 50 state fiat, conditionality, multi-plank/actor fiat if they can’t be kicked separately
 * Bad**: process CPs that compete off of certainty or immediacy, devolution, offsets, condition, word PICs, consult, multi-actor international fiat


 * DA** – I love DAs and I especially love politics. Uniqueness controls the direction of the link makes more intuitive sense to me, but links are generally better/more specific -- your argumentation determines where I fall. There can be zero risk of the DA. Both sides need to explain why they turn and outweigh each other. Intrinsicness and other theoretical arguments are unpersuasive unless dropped.


 * K** – I’m an okay judge for this, but if your K is named after a specific person I probably won’t understand the buzzwords you’re throwing out. Requires a detailed explanation of the link, not just “duh they use the state, the state is capitalist, lolz”. Framework is one of the most important components and you need to invest some time if you don't think the aff should get to weigh their impacts. Root cause versus proximate causes and other tricks like VTL, fiat double bind, extinction inevitable need to be answered by the aff. 2AR strategies like the perm, case outweighs, or simply defending the specificities of the 1AC are the affirmative's best bet.


 * Speaker Points** – You can improve your speaker points in front of me by being clear, smart, and straightforward. Humor, sassiness, etc. is funny but doesn't win rounds -- don't prioritize it and don't be a jerk.


 * Clipping** – defined as missing five or more words. The other team needs audio/video evidence. If I find a team has clipped they will lose and get zero speaker points. If I find a team has not clipped, the accusing team will lose and get zero speaker points.