Levin,+Arielle

Updated for Woodward

I'm currently a junior and I debate for Pace. These are my predispositions, but they can be easily changed depending on how the debate goes down:

- Tag team cx is fine (does anyone actually not allow this?) - If an argument is 100% dropped, I will vote on it (as long as its not offensive) - If you steal prep, or I think you are stealing prep, I will tell you once. If you keep doing this later on, I won't call you out again, I just wont stop the timer until you are done and subtract .1 speaker points for every 5 seconds stolen.
 * Quick notes:**


 * Topicality** – I usually default to competing interpretations. Don't forget to do impact calculus and explain why the topic is better under your interpretation.


 * DAs** – Love them. A good DA/Case debate needs to have a clearly explained link/impact calc and all of that good stuff. The politics disad is good for debate so please don't go for these type of arguments unless they are dropped in which case you should definitely go for them.


 * CPs** – Also cool. Advantage CPs, PICs, and conditions are great just make sure you are winning theory. Consult/recommendations/agent CPs are probably not competitive and can be resolved by perm do the CP or theory. Multiple planks are great too, just make sure you slow down for the text of each one and clearly explain what they are in cx.


 * Case** – Smart impact turns are some of my faves, but be prepared to need to do a bunch of impact evidence comparison. Also please don't run stupid/offensive impact turns - warming and prolif could be good but patriarchy and racism are definitely not


 * Ks** – I'm secretly not as well versed in kritikal literature as I like to pretend I am. Katie and I run a fem aff so I'm pretty familiar with that stuff but chances are if you stand up and talk to me about Lacan I'm going to need some help to get what you are talking about. The link debate is super important and the neg should have reasons why the K impacts/tricks turn case.


 * Theory** – tbh this is probably my least favorite debate to judge but if there is a situation where you literally cannot debate under those circumstances (ie. the neg runs 2433453 conditional options) then go for it. Impact calc needs to start in the 1ar and there needs to be a lot of clash. Reading your pre-written 2ar overview that doesn't apply probably won't work out for you. I'm pretty neg leaning on theory questions a long as they don't go too crazy.

- Speed over clarity (totally kidding - please be clear) - There's a difference between being aggressive and just being a jerk - you can crush a team without making them feel bad about themselves - Try not to interrupt your partner too much - I pinky promise you they are not an idiot and excessive interrupting is my pet peeve - Don't call me judge - I have a name - It's Arielle (also pretty please say it right - its literally the letters R E L) - Run what you are good at - if you are a top-notch topicality debater, go for it. I don't want to see you pulling up a giant pre-blocked-out Nietzsche file just to stand up for cx and sound silly because you don't know what it says. - Don't clip cards - its cheating and you will lose - Also I love Nicole Moxley but thats just a fun fact about me
 * Misc things I think are super important:**


 * If you have any questions, feel free to ask**