Williams,+Brittany


 * Updated: November 20, 2010**


 * Background:** I am a Sophomore attending, and debating for the University of Minnesota. I debated for 4 years prior to the University at North Community High School in Minneapolis. I've judged about 4 tournaments on this topic.

My philosophy shouldn’t be too out of the ordinary for most folks. I will listen to anything. I need arguments to be impacted on a micro and macro level. If I don’t understand how you think an argument functions in the round then you probably won’t like the results. When it comes to my ballot, I’ll look at what the debaters point out and make a big deal about before anything else. If you think your opponent is wrong about the ballot, tell me why.


 * Topicality**: l tend to default to competing interpretations. That being said the debaters need to do the work in rounds. Impact the standards. Give me examples of what is and isn’t topical under your interpretation. Tell me why those affs are good or bad. Oh and topicality is not a reverse voting issue. Seriously. It's a speaker point killer.


 * Theory**: Just like with Topicality these things need to be impacted and explained well. I’m not likely to vote on conditionality bad unless the 1ar and the 2ar chose to invest a lot of time on it. Typically, I think debaters focus too much on Condo debates and could invest their time somewhere else. Most theory questions aren't reasons to reject the team but just the argument. I tend to be very hesitant to count them out. I’ll explain what I think about specific counterplan theory in that section.


 * Case**: If you want to win your DA, you should probably have some good case defense. Impact turning is pretty sweet IMO so if you want to do that I’m cool. Affirmatives should weigh the case in the debate with an even if we lose this argument sort of attitude. I’ll reward you with good speaker points and I’ll get a better grasp of what it means to vote aff.


 * Disads**: I tend to prefer Disad/Case debates over K debates (I’ll still listen to the K). Just like with the case debate negative teams need to explain the impacts in a way that assumes they might not win 100% of the impact. You should probably make sure you win your link too. If you think your ev doesn’t go as far as it should explain what the aff does that still gets you some risk of it. It’s all about what you can do with the ev more than anything.


 * Counterplans**: I like counterplans. I think they add a lot to debates. I like PIC’s quite a bit. I tend to default neg on questions of PIC theory. I tend to think multiple actors are bad but States counterplans are legitimate. It's probably one of the most predictable counterplans on this topic. As far as agent counterplans go, I don’t lean either way on questions of their legitimacy. Having a solvency advocate is key really for most of these things. Consult is questionable but probably okay especially if there's already a consult system in place. If you are reading an advantage counterplan or a multiple step counterplan, you need to realize I probably don't know what the counterplan does because I haven't read the text specifically. Help yourself out by always explaining the mechanism. I kind of think timeframe counterplans suck for the affirmative. I also mostly believe multiple stages isn't the fairest of things to do. Regardless of what I think about theory questions it is, just like with everything else, about what the debaters do in the round. My personal beliefs about these things has never stopped me from running them and it shouldn't stop you. I think if affirmatives don’t have good answers to certain counterplans the best strat is to impact turn the net benefit. I tend to think that’s pretty neat.


 * Kritiks**: I’m not super familiar with the literature of most K’s but that’s okay as long as the debaters explain them well. I think the link story is the most important in most K’s. Just like with DA’s if your evidence doesn’t say “the aff” point out something they do that your links say is bad. That doesn’t mean you should focus on nothing but the links it just means it’s important. The next area of concern should be alt solvency (if you have an alt that is). If the affirmative has offense on the alt, why should I vote for you? That also means the impacts need to be well explained. I tend to think the aff should be able to weigh their case impacts but that’s mostly up to the debaters in the round. Same goes for framework questions. It’s up to y’all.

Don’t let me deter you from doing what you want to do in debates. It’s a game, so have some fun, don’t stress. Don’t be mean to your opponents (or your partner) that will probably get you low speaker points. Oh and speaking of speaks, I tend to think a 27 is average and have given out a 29 or two this year. Make smart arguments and you could get one of those too.

I’ll update soon.