Bell,+Kristina

Hello, I did Policy for 4 years in High School, at Garces Memorial High School in Bakersfield, CA. Currently I attend California State University, Long Beach. I did policy there for one year, and now I compete in Parliamentary debate. I still judge most California tournaments, and can keep up with pretty much any high school policy round. I am a hired assistant coach for Polytechnic School, in Pasadena. I do traditional rounds, I do critiquey rounds, and I do rounds where my partner and I literally meditate in-round. I have a place in my heart for all approaches to debate.

Traditional v. Non-Traditional rounds: I do not care. At all. I think that you should have a framework for debate (if the two styles conflict) on a separate sheet of paper that gives reasons to justify you doing what you do. I am open to a traditional round, I am open to a performance round, I am open to a round that ends with a discussion and a coin toss.

Types of Arguments: I prefer students to not make arguments that would offend/exclude certain groups from the activity. The reason you can't have a person from your school judge you is to keep judging objective, and I think if students make homophobic, sexist, racist, or otherwise derogatory remarks whether as parts of arguments or not, they are making the activity non-objective. If you have a disad that Obama winning is going to let The Gays get married and that's bad because then people will start to marry dogs, don't run it in front of me.

Specifics Topicality - I have a pretty high threshold for the negative to prove in-round abuse, and that meaningful education was lost to vote on T. Alternately, if the aff just messes it up in the 2AC, I am all about the block schooling them on it. Likewise, if you are the 2A and school them on T (whether traiditionally, critiquing it, or both), I am all about that. If you give a baller speech on T, I have been known to be a speaker point fairy. But if you are terrible, it doesn't hurt (too) much.

Other Procedurals (Spec, Vagueness, etc): See Topicality

Disads - I think a clearly explained internal link story is necessary. And you MUST tell me what your impacts are, and why and how they outweigh those of the affirmative.

Politics/Elections - Amusing, but probably not likely. I conceed that they are key to some neg strategies, and will vote on them.

Counterplans - Any type of counterplan (topical or not, PIC, consult, whatever) is fine with me. Explain how they compete and why the perm doesn't work.

Case Turns - Tell me a pretty 2NR story.

Critiques - You need to have an overview of what your alternative is, and examples of how it can solve. Also you need to clearly win why the perm doesn't work. If your speech consists of "this is just another link to the K" but don't tell me why, then there is no warrant to your argument. Even if it should seem obvious. Make sure you say your warrants.

If you have questions, you can email me at kbell4@csulb.edu and I'll answer them to the best of my knowledge, so you can accurately do your strikes.