Smet,+Christine

University of Washington ‘18 Rounds judged on the 2015-16 high school topic: ~25 msmet[at]uw.edu
 * Christine Smet **

// Experience // I debated for 4 years at University High School in Irvine, California and now debate at the University of Washington. I’m primarily a 2A/1N but was double 2s my senior year of high school. As a 2A, I’ve mostly read soft left and identity affs. As a 2N, I preferred going for kritiks, topicality, and case turns.

// General //
 * Debate is probably an educational space and a game – you probably have to defend that words mean something
 * I default to the idea that the role of the ballot is to signify who did the best debating
 * Impact calculus and evidence comparison needs to happen
 * CX is important
 * Bad K debates are worse than bad disad debates
 * Theory is most convincing when there’s in-round abuse
 * Anything racist, sexist, transphobic, etc. will result in docked speaks

// Affirmatives //
 * Affs should affirm a topical action
 * Affs should have internal links, not just a chain of random impacts
 * If the aff does not defend a topical action, they should be able to defend why the aff is good for debate

// Topicality/framework //
 * I default to competing interpretations
 * T debates need to be impacted out
 * Fairness is less persuasive than education, limits, and state engagement/reform args
 * Topical versions of the aff that actually solve for the aff are pretty persuasive - so are case lists of untopical affs and of ground the neg loses

// Kritiks //
 * You should have specific links – at the very least, you should be able to contextualize your links to the aff
 * Be able to explain what the alternative is/does
 * Probably not the best high theory judge