Revenew,+Kailyn

I debated for 4 years at Desert Vista High School, and I am a freshman debating at ASU.

no clipping or cheating. I can handle speed but will tell you if I need you to be clearer and/or slow down. Be funny in cross ex, don't be rude.


 * tldwr**: I will vote for the arguments that the team is winning- the rest of the page is just how i view argument so you can use it to adapt as you please. I find myself more of a tech over truth debater but can be persuaded to fall back on metaclaims instead of techy type of concessions. Don't be offensive, discriminatory, or make anyone in the round uncomfortable with your language, behavior and/or body odor. Warranted and comparative analysis and line by line debating is actually directly correlated with how well you do in the round (and speaker points).

Affs: The affirmative needs to be tangentially related to the resolution. The definition of “tangentially” is up for interpretation of course. Plan texts are cool, advocacy statements are cool, affs as advocacies are cool, 1ACs are cool. I will not vote for you if I do not know what I am voting for.

Negs: My job is a judge is to look at the evidence presented and the arguments made- and the analysis that goes with it- and decide which team did the better debating. 1NCs that are the strongest have an equal amount of case as they do off case, and about 70% of the speech as a whole should be offensive for the neg. 4 off: T, DA, CP, and K with 4 minutes of destroying the case is good. Don't time suck anything in the block. That is the most valuable amount of time in a debate round and if you’re not winning the block you better hope you have good karma to pull through in the 2NR. Do not feel like you need to extend every argument made in the block. Kick things please, sacrifice bad arguments in favor of analysis. Be strategic when you kick things. 2NRs need to be both winning arguments and closing doors. They're hard, which is why you need to be diligent and prepared in the block.

Topicality: Competing interpretations unless reasonability is conceded/ won: in which case I look to see if your interpretation/aff is reasonable in the context of the definitions provided. In round abuse is not necessary but if it exists I think it only strengthens your claims to call them out on it. Sometimes it is harder to find violations on certain topics, so I am sympathetic to the "time suck" idea of T-- in the 1NC. Please keep T debates organized. T is not a reverse voting issue.

Theory: Default interpretations: 1 conditional k and 1 conditional counterplan; perms are just tests of competitions; dispositionality means you can kick an advocacy if they straight turn or perm it. Standards need to be attacked individually. Slow down and make sure I am getting your arguments, especially if you wanna sit on it later on in the debate. In the last speeches everything needs to be impacted, why is conditionality bad, and what does that mean for the debate round/round as a whole. Frame these debates please.

Politics(<3): The neg should be telling a story here. Also don't concede politics theory. Uniqueness controls direction of the link, and link/link turn debates need to be fleshed out and compared BY BOTH SIDES. Give me reasons to prefer your turn over their card. DA's that control/solve impact scenarios of the aff are bueno. If your disad cannot access an impact, you better have case turns, a counterplan or some hella defense on that scenario. This is an area where I am more liniant on spin of evidence, because I understand politics never goes as planned (sigh). I will look at the evidence if I feel the debate has not been resolved for one side or the other, but how you spin a card (if it makes sense) will definitely be taken into consideration when I read the card.

Counterplans: Should solve the aff, be competitive via a net benefit and make sense. I am not a fan of consult counterplans and process counterplans unless they are specific to the topic. You can get away with anything you can defend though. Be sure to weigh and analyze the solvency deficits to the aff, and why permutations do/do not work.

Kritiks: In order to win a k, you need to know what’s going on. Framework needs to be won, no matter what side you’re on. You should also want to win framework, it gives you a lot of offense and helps me frame the round. I guess if you have a question about a specific K, you should ask before round. I prefer analysis over cards on K debates, but think there needs to be evidence to back up your arguments.

Last and Favorite Argument <3 Framework: First Part: Theoretical This flow needs to be really organized. Permutations on interpretations are a smart move for the affirmative, as long as you can defend it. I think the negative needs to decide in the block whether they are using framework to set a standard for debate or if I use framework to shape the round. I am okay with speed but be clear as hell in these debates. Answer every argument they make where they make it and sign post as you go. Second: Substantive This is how the negative can use the framework flow to control the impacts and framing of the aff. I don’t really have much to say other than this is just like pure offense so Idk why you wouldn't have this. Use these cards as answers to the substantive part and to case take outs. Don't just use camp cards, go find some specific to the topic. Why is roleplaying as a government on oceanic policy beneficial? Good K and Good Policy teams will win framework debates.

Speaker Points: Are really important to me so I will reward those who do well. I think good, organized debaters deserve good speaker points. I also think that your ability to eloquently explain (and spin) an argument will benefit you also. Finally, strategy plays a huge roll in deciding points, and I will reward 1NRs who kick out of arguments in a way that screws the aff, ect. (same goes for all speaker points).