Brannen,+Mary+Bryce

Westminster 2017 - marybryceb@gmail.com I'm a senior at Westminster and I'm a 2A. At some point over the past four years I've been every combination of speaker positions (except for ins & outs).

**General** -- Please do not try and over-adapt to my philosophy, what I have below is only general guidelines to how I evaluate/think about debates. I would much rather see a good debate and watch you do what you do best. I don't take prep. for flashing/emailing. If there is an email chain, I want to be on it. (See email above.) PLEASE **be nice** to your partner and everyone else in the round. Dropped arguments have to be extended and **explained** for me to vote on them. Also if you're funny, please be funny - I love funny people.

**Case** -- The internal links are usually the weakest part of the aff. Make smart analytics, exploit the fact that their internal links don't make sense. This will get you much farther in a debate than reading 10 generic impact defense cards.

**Cross-ex** -- Cross-ex is a great time to destroy the aff. Again, attack the internal links. Only interupt your partners cross-ex if you are otherwise going to lose the debate.

**DAs** -- The more specific, the better. No debate is better than a good DA + case debate.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Impact Turns** -- <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">These are probably my favorite argument. However, one thing I have noticed in these debates, both from judging them and debating in them, is that they can great extremely messy. Therefore, please make sure you spend a lot of time on framing the debate and giving me a lense through which to evaluate the debate. A debate that comes down to me just reading a bunch of cards can be very risky for both sides. **This tip about framing the debate/good overview explanation applies to all debates, not just impact turn debates, although it is especially important for those.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**CPs** -- <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Perms do not need to have a net benefit <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Explain clearly how the CP solves the aff. A key thing in doing this is answering all the solvency deficits, not matter how small or dumb they may seem at first. A good 2A can, and should, expand on any the neg. blows off. The aff should also impact their solvency deficits in terms of their advantages and how it affects their termainal impacts. 2As should always try to read an add-on that the CP can't solve for. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">I will not kick the CP for the neg. unless I am explicitly instructed to in the 2NR. However, if this argument is at all answerd by the aff, it becomes extremely unlikely for the negative that I will kick the CP for them.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Theory** -- <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Condo - 1 K and 1 CP (or 2 condo) is probably fine and any less conditional advocacies than that is fine. More than two conditional options can get risky for the negative, but I can definitely be persuaded otherwise. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Delay CPs, Consult CPs that aren't related to the topic, and some process CPs are all most likely very cheating and a reason to vote aff. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Other - If they don't go for the cheating CP/perm, theory is a reason to reject the argument, not the team.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**T** -- <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">I love a good T debate. A "good T debate" is one where the violation is explained, supported by a good definition and the impacts are explained well in terms of how it affects the topic. Do not just read a generic limits DA, make sure all the arguments you are making are contextualized to the aff/the violation you read. Specificity goes a long way. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Specificity goes a long way. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Aff v. T - defend your interpretation. Explaint to me why your interpretation is the best vision for the topic. Reasonability is also important and can go a long way. Explain how your aff meets the core topic controversy.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Ks** -- <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">The more generic the K, the better off you are. The more obscure the K is, the more explanation that will be required by the negative. I will not be happy if you are reading a K for the purpose of confusing the other team or ignoring the line-by-line. You should be able to understand the argument you are reading and be able to explain it beyond just buzzwords. Contextualize any links to the aff. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Aff v. K - Defend your aff! Heg is good, empiricism good, reformism good, state good, fiat good, etc. are all arguments I am easily persuaded by. Do not neglect framework. That being said though, I do feel very strongly that weighing the aff is good and should be done. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">"Role of the ballot" debating is arbitrary and an excuse for lazy debating. Instead of making arguments that are "Vote (neg/aff) to challenge (x)", instead win that challenging (x) actually outweighs the other teams arguments. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">I default to util, but can be persuaded otherwise. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">I will not vote on death good.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Planless Affs** -- <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">I think the aff should defend a topical action by the USfg. T-USfg is a very persausive argument. If you are reading this aff, focus on explaning why reading your aff in a debate round is important and why the education you present in the round cannot be accessed other places (warning: this is an uphill battle). Overall, I am probably not the best judge for you if you do not read a plan.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Last Thought**s -- <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">If you have any questions feel free to email me. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">If you read through all of this and still want more info about me as a judge, go read DHeidt's judge philosophy, because I 100% agree with it. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Be nice** and have fun!