Nash,+Carissa

=Carissa Nash= Graduated from Keller High School 2008 Southwestern University 2012

CX Judging debate paradigm: policy maker/tabula rasa
Building off of the traditional I prefer the debate to focus primarily on the resolution with thoughtful, well-reasoned arguments. Practical application examples with their impacts are often more persuasive than argumentation focused only on abstractions and theories. Arguments rooted in philosophy can be necessary and are often merited if properly applied, but arguments that depend completely on abstractions, jargon, theory, etc. and avoid the pragmatic aspects of the resolution are risky and often stray from the intention. I appreciate a clear case that includes the standard, arguments for support (philosophical and pragmatic), and impacts. Quality wins out over quantity. Depth in key arguments wins out over a survey of arguments.


 * Topicality**: Make sure to explain exactly what your interpretation is and what it allows and disallows, as well as why this is important. “We set better limits” isn’t an argument without elaboration. I’ll default to a competing interpretations standard although this is not a rigid framework.


 * DA’s**: classic negative strategy that is pleasant to watch if executed properly. I’m sympathetic to affirmatives who debate undercooked disads and point out obvious internal link problems analytically.


 * Kritiks and CPs**: Kritiks for the sake kritiks is not a good strategy. If you have a link to the resolution in a well articulated and thought out argument, I am open to the arguments. Don’t run off cited philosophy without having internalized what you are attempting to spout. Counterplans must win by weighing solvency mechanisms and viewing advantages and disadvantages in a plan-plan format.

//Basically, in sum, I am looking for intellectually stimulating, well-calculated arguments and clash. Memorizing jargon and regurgitating facts does not make an argument. Have fun, perform competitively.//