Coughlin-Schulte,+Chloe

Chloe Coughlin-Schulte CPS ‘10 I haven’t actually judged in a year, but I have the misfortune to be friends with the entire Georgetown team, so I haven’t forgotten entirely about debate. That said, you probably shouldn’t assume I already know all the ins and outs of your super tricky aff-that doesn’t mean I won’t vote for it, it just means you should explain it (which goes for all arguments actually…)

Disads: I love a good disad/case or disad/CP 2NR. The more specific the link, the happier I’ll be. I think a good impact calculus can really make or break the 2AR/2NR, and it will also make me happy. I’m also receptive to good, logical, common sense arguments. You don’t need cards to point out rational flaws in their link story, uniqueness, etc.

Counterplans: I was a 2N and did all types of shady stuff, and was really astounded that I got away with it: a word pic, a K with an alt that does the aff, and another counterplan is probably not legit, and the aff shouldn’t be afraid to say so. Obviously I’d much rather see a good plan mechanism v. CP debate, but sometimes shit happens. In the same vein, specific counterplans are sweet, not specific ones are less so, but I’m obviously not gonna hold it against you so long as you debate it well.

K’s: they aren’t my favorite thing in the world, but I’ll vote for them. Specific links are persuasive, as is a good framework debate (from both the aff and the neg.) I think there is a general trend where debaters have moved from actually explaining their argument to just using buzzwords that sound “kritik-esque.” Please don’t do this-I read K’s but I am by no means a philosophy expert. Explain clearly what you’re talking about, how it relates to the aff, and how I should evaluate it, and everybody will be happier. I’m fine with performance, narratives, anything else non-traditional you wanna do, but the same request for adequate explanation applies here.

T: why is your interpretation better for debate? Real examples of this are better than generic claims of “the neg could never get a link”. Give me a framework to evaluate your interpretations-what impacts matter most, etc.

Other stuff: speed is fine, clarity is important. Slow down on extra important things, (plan text, CP text, theory.) Jokes/sarcasm/being aggressive is awesome, to a point. If you’re making the other team cry or if you’re being a dick to your partner, you’ve probably taken it too far.