Wurst,+Carolyn

**Carrie Wurst** **Assistant Coach, Crosby HS (TX)**

**Experience:** Cy Falls High School '09 (LD, IEs) CU Boulder 2010-2011 (Policy)

(Updated 12/04/14)


 * //__Both CX and LD: __// **

I am capable of flowing at pretty much any speed, and I typically prefer a faster paced debate; however, I heavily preference clarity over speed. If you are unclear, or think you may be unclear, it is to your benefit to slow down at the very least on tags and cites. I will not prompt you verbally on clarity, though I'm pretty expressive otherwise. If I stop flowing or look confused or lost, that's probably a clue that I can't understand you. Please be sure that you enunciate your words. Also, please do not shout at me. My ears will be sad and then I will drop your speaker points.

I'm not generally a fan of kicking out of main arguments. If you bring it up, you should develop it. However, I recognize that it can be necessary strategically.

I like to enjoy debate rounds. You won't be penalized if the round isn't enjoyable, but you're more likely to reach perfect speaks if you have depth of argumentation, clarity, AND are entertaining.

__ //**CX: **// __ I try to be as Tabula Rasa as possible. I don't want to intervene, do not expect me to do work for you.

That said, I will intervene if you are being intentionally dishonest/misleading or are being overly offensive, you will lose my ballot.

I'm very skeptical of performance and "nontraditional" affirmatives, especially if there is no sort of policy implementation or mindset. If you want to run this kind of argument, you will need to do an extraordinary amount of time into articulating why I should wholly reject a policy framework. I definitely am pro-critical thinking and theory, but I believe different forums exist for specific reasons and if you want me to reject policy outright you need to have solid warrants. I also am not compelled my kritiks that are wholly non-germane to the resolution.

**//Topicality//:** I'm all about topicality. I'll vote on weird interpretations so long as they're adequately defended, but it needs to be well constructed and carefully thought out. Abuse needs to be proven to be a voter, but it need not be significant in the round for it to be proven - my threshold on abuse is quite low, and often things that people categorize as potential abuse I would consider abuse if argued in the proper manner.

**//Theory//:** This is probably my favorite thing to watch...when done correctly. I absolutely hate *bad* theory debates.

**//Kritiks//:** I like well-constructed and thoughtful kritiks that actually critique the resolution as opposed to particular bits of the aff (to me, those belong more under case debate anyway since you're objecting to components of the case or the method of the aff rather than the resolution writ large). If you're going to run a K, I'd appreciate it if you spend some time explaining it in the first neg speech (in CX I'm not a huge fan of running a 3-card kritik shell and only pouncing on it if the other team doesn't bite). If you're making an objection to the method of the aff's case or the resolution at large, it should be a centerpiece of your neg strategy. Make sure your link is well-articulated, both to the resolution and to the case itself - most kritik ideologies aren't as black and white as they are painted by the neg team, and recognition and discussion of this nuance is a must for both teams in kritik rounds. I don't necessarily buy that Affs have to be married to their method or that that the Kritik is necessarily exclusive with certain approaches to the resolution unless those are justified, as the entire POINT of critical ideology is that we need to rethink the way that we conceive of the world, and often this can mean that alteration of Aff viewpoints, not wholesale rejection, is an appropriate way forward that's consistent with negative ideologies. I ALSO don't necessarily automatically buy rejection or voting neg as a necessity to agreeing with the viewpoint of the kritik - the onus is on the negative team to justify why these are superior options to the Aff's proposition. If you've got a policy/specific alternative for the kritik, that's ALWAYS preferable to something vague - makes it very easy to conceptualize Aff vs. Neg world, and certainly fits much better within the purview of policy-based debate.

**//Case Argumentation/Disads//:** I'm more than willing to vote on them. You really need substantial offense on both so that there is some sort of weighing mechanism for the round. On disads, like with kritiks, links need to be well articulated and as specific as possible.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">**//Counterplans//:** Generic CPs are usually unnecessary and unstrategic. I do, however, really like thoughtful, case or area specific CPs. However, no team that runs an actor CP or the like will be penalized unless it's incredibly poorly constructed and defended. If it's the right tool for the round, roll with it and win the arguments. Your competition needs to be well-articulated and SHOULD BE DISCUSSED IN THE 1NC. I don't believe perms to be affirmative advocacy (they're a test of competition), but if you justify my entertaining them as advocacy and win such justification, I will evaluate them as such.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">Basically, the debate belongs to you. I'll do my best to evaluate what and how you tell me to.

// __**<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">LD: **__ // <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">Specific to LD, I want a clear story linking back the argumentation in the round to both sides' value(s) and criteri(on/a) (or standards, whatever terminology you prefer) or devaluing one side's or the others' so I get a sense of how you want me to weigh the round. Debate in LD occurs to me on two levels - one telling me how I should adjudicate the round and one telling me how the arguments should compel me to vote one way or the other based on the framework under which I should adjudicate the round. I am VERY anti-policy-based argumentation in LD - *unless* the resolution calls for it. But you will have to sink significant time into justifying my evaluating a values debate with a policy framework. If we're discussing, for instance, a just society, plans about what particular countries should do or counterplans and critiques of particular implementations on the implementation level aren't going to be exceptionally persuasive to me. Speed is fine, but your arguments should be more along the core lines of LD than the core lines of CX.