Hooper,+Desiree

the "k" - certainly where the brunt of my personal debate (and academic) experience lies. however, this hardly means kritiks should always be your go-to strategy in front of me. i'm rather familiar with much of the literature, which means you probably should be as well. while in-depth analysis, specific links, and solid impact comparisons can make for some fairly riveting debates - overly generic and under-explained can be rather painful. i am also a big fan of a well articulated ballot-role - it's nice to have a coherent advocacy to endorse in the rfd. counter-plans/disads - i very much love crafty, aff-specific, and highly competitive counter-plans with substantive net-benefits. but, i guess that counts as stating the obvious. t and framework - i can be convinced of just about any paradigm so long as it is well-warranted. that's probably the most important take-away: you should know that an argument has three parts. say some things which contain those, weigh them adequately against what the opposition says, and compare, compare, compare.

general asides: - humor is fantastic, but there is certainly such a thing as too much sass. - cross-ex is undoubtedly a time to garner speaker points. while it may not be a speech unto itself, i tend to reward teams which take advantage. - i am far more impressed by smart arguments and strategic decisions than card-cutting abilities. - overviews should always serve a function and that function should probably be more than aesthetic. - there's a special place in my heart for a really well played impact-turn debate. - it is truly my goal to abstain from interference as much as possible. i'm in the back of the room to arbitrate, not impose - so do what you do best and do it well and you'll be fine.

should you have any other questions, feel free to ask.