Call,+Hannah

Updated: 10/22/14

I'm a third year debater at George Mason.

Debate is a game. You should have fun, and treat it as such. That being said, please keep things educational. Don't read arguments like "'the' pic" in front of me, because I think those types of arguments are pointless, and not at all beneficial for either party involved. Topicality: Reverse voting issues are stupid. If you extend them I'll probably dock speaker points. I default to competing interpretations. I don't find reasonability unpersuasive, but I do believe that the affirmative should be able to defend their conception of the topic. If you are reading a policy aff that has little relevance to the topic, or are a very small portion of it, you better have a great defense of that area. I strongly believe that the most educational and beneficial template for the topic is one determined by the literature.

CPs/CP Theory: Slow down while reading theory. I usually err negative on CP theory if it comes down to something like conditionality. I'm fine with giving the negative 2 conditional worlds and the squo. If you're wanting to go for theory on the CP, impact it well. The more abusive the CP is, the more persuaded I will be to vote on theory. Make smart arguments about why the CP is uniquely bad (such as combining different theoretical objections together) to boost speaker points, and persuade me more. I'm becoming more and more convinced that process and conditions counterplans are abusive and, at the very least, justify limited intrinsic perms. PICs are evaluated on an individual basis for me; it really depends on how much of the aff is still allowed in the world of the PIC, and if the neg is actually disproving the resolution. The states counterplan is silly. If you run a multi-plank CP and run each plank conditionally, I will default to looking at them as multiple individual CPs that happen don't contradict. However, if you chose to not run all of the planks conditionally, smart aff choices would be to impact turn one or two of the planks. DAs: The best. Never underestimate the value of a smart analytic and cool tricks are encouraged. I will default to a probability based analysis unless told otherwise. Teams lose very often lose to args like "DA turns case," or even teams that form the DA into something that solves the case in the block. When neg, make sure to make a lot of turns case args and make it as offensive as possible. Kritiks: I'm not well-read on the literature, but if you explain things well, and you win the debate, I'll vote for you. Don't assume that saying "ontology" is an automatic reason to vote neg. You have to justify what that means in the context of the debate, and why it should be valued over extinction. I have ran policy-oriented K's, and am fine on those (security, cap, etc). Just be sure to justify things, and we'll be good. I am, however, open to alternative ways of viewing the round. PLEASE avoid tag-line extension, especially with your alternative. I am certainly willing to vote aff on presumption in these debates. This being said, don't drastically deviate from your strategy in front of me. If you run what you're good at, you should be fine. Also, I don't think that turning the debate into one about methods means that the aff can't win a perm. A perm is a test of competition between the two advocacies, and should be evaluated as such. Saying "this is a methods debate, they don't get a perm," doesn't make sense, and if that's your only response, you'll likely lose the perm. Side note: if you're running a "do nothing" K, I have a very high threshold for this, because I would prefer to believe that my ballot at least affirms something.

K affs/framework: These debates have the potential to be both really interesting and really frustrating, so be wise about it. Framework is a very good option in front of me. But I desire to see it run well. So if you lose, I will vote you down. I think, if anything, K affs should at least have something for me to affirm and have some sort of goal for the debate-space. Teams that say "we don't defend implementation", or "we think contemplation is enough" as no link arguments out of Ks or DAs, are not persuasive. Defending your aff includes defending the consequences of that aff's implementation. Using performative contradictions, i.e., saying "your cap K links to your FW", as a reason to not vote neg, even if they win what they go for, is not strategic in front of me. I already think K affs get policy teams out of their comfort zone and they should be allowed to test the methodology of the aff and the a priori question of if the aff should be considered. I think fairness is often underutilized as a framework argument, which makes decision-making the frequent go-to. I think fairness is very persuasive as a net benefit to framework, and should be treated as such. Outside of something that was blatantly offensive, I personally believe that all language is contextual and words only mean as much as the meaning attached to them. Thus, args like "we didn't use it in that context" is convincing to me. I can be persuaded to vote them down, but I am going to be more biased the other way.

Speaker points: 1) Clarity should never be sacrificed for speed. I understand if you're short on time and you need to squeeze a card in, but unless you absolutely have to, prioritize clarity. I'll say "clear" twice to each debater. After that, if I still don't understand you, I just won't flow your argument. 2) Confidence gets you a long way. 3) Be respectful to other debaters and to me. I do encourage humor and small quips, but there is a fine line between sarcasm and being a jerk. 4) Cross ex is imperative. It's one of the most vulnerable areas when it comes to your knowledge of your evidence. Coaches can give you blocks to read, but your own comprehension comes out in cross ex. It's binding. 5) If you prevent your opponent from answering in cross ex, that won't bode well for speaks.