Wimsatt,+Katie

Katie Wimsatt Berkeley 2021 Encinitas Independent/San Dieguito Academy 2017

The basics:

Put me on the email chain: ktwimsatt at gmail Tech > Truth Clipping is cheating Don’t be mean

Specific arguments:

Affs that do not defend a plan: This is admittedly an area where I don’t know a ton, but I am willing to listen and evaluate them. Affs that have a strong link to the topic are more likely to win my ballot, but as long as you can defend your method, go for it. Against framework, I find impact turns and link turns persuasive, along with arguments that point out the (sometimes obvious) holes in most neg shells. Please do a ton of impact calculus. Framework: My personal views lean pro-framework and framework was most of my 2nrs against affs that do not defend plans. However, this is not some insurmountable barrier and I will avoid inserting my personal views into the decision. In terms of going for framework, I prefer impacts based more on the educational values of debate/portable skills, mainly because too many debaters just rely on blanket claims of “fairness” without a real explanation as to what that actually means. As most teams explain it, fairness is more of an internal link than an impact, but if fairness is your thing, go for it. Make sure internal links are coherently explained throughout the round. TVAs are helpful, but not a gold standard that guarantee a neg ballot. Additionally, debates involving framework usually involve impacts that are completely different and almost impossible to compare. You are much more likely to be happy with the result if you start comparative impact calculus early, and make it a major point in the last speeches. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Ks: <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Please don’t assume I know what you’re talking about, there is a very very high probability I haven’t read any literature about your K before. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">The more specific the link, the easier it will be for me to vote for the K. I particularly hate links that just focus on the use of the state, instead of on the action taken by the aff, but if you have specific, warranted links to the aff (and these don’t need to be carded!) it’ll make it harder to justify a perm. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Take the time to actually explain what your alt does and how it resolves the impacts and the links. Alts are by far the weakest part of the K in most cases, and I’m more sympathetic to generic alt takeout arguments when there’s only a shallow explanation of how the alt functions in the debate space. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Extending Arguments: <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">For some reason, a lot of debaters I've judged so far haven't actually been extending arguments. An argument is a claim and a warrant and I will get annoyed if both aren't extended. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">If, in the varsity/open/anything except for novice division, you use the line "extend this across the flow" or "extend [author name]" without further explanation of what that argument/evidence actually says, you will not receive speaker points higher than 27.9. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Conditionality and theory: <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I tend to err neg on theory, especially on conditionality. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Please do not spread straight through your theory shells. Slowing down is always better. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Counterplans: <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Counterplans are personally my favorite strategy, but that’s a double-edged sword because I also have a very high standard for CP solvency. CP solvency needs to be at the very least contextualized to the aff analytically, although having evidence about the aff or something similar is always helpful. Without contextualization, I’m more likely to lean aff in terms of solvency deficits and interactions with net benefits. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I lean very far neg on CP theory—cheater counterplans are some of my favorite arguments. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Disads: <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Are amazing. Uniqueness controls the direction of the link (unless I'm instructed otherwise). <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Case Debate: <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Please do it, and please do more than reading impact defense. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Cross-Ex: <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">It's a speech. I usually flow it and it usually has a big impact on speaker points.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">For LD/Not Policy:

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I've never done anything that's not policy. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">LD Specifics: I DO NOT know theory or phil. If you read it in front of me, I will probably drop you. You should LARP.