Sheehan,+Marie

I am a senior at Highland Park high school in St. Paul. I am the assistant coach at Highland Park junior high therefore I have judged some junior high and novice debates this year. Throughout high school I have primarily debated the K. Despite this please debate how you want to debate in front of me don’t switch up your strat or do something you are not comfortable with because you think it might give you better chances.

For Kritiks-- I am open to anything. The kritiks that I have the most knowledge about include Nietzsche, Anthro, Apocalyptic Rhetoric, and I have read a little bit of Foucault (although not in the context of debate). If you are running really complex philosophy explanatory overviews in final rebuttals are always nice/helpful. I think that a K does not need an alternative but it should be clear what I’m voting for at the end of the round. I also think that fw is not a reason to reject the team but it is a good/necessary debate for the aff to have in terms of how impacts will be weighed and what the role of the ballot is.

Critical Affs-- Go for it. Although I would prefer that it be tangentially related to the topic at a minimum. For the neg if you are going for fw against these sorts of affs that’s fine, but it would be more fun if you thought up some sort of creative strat.

Theory-- As a debater my neg strat frequently consists of two K’s in the 1NC. I generally think 2 conditional advocacies is fine although if you can find contradictions that are very clear between the two advocacies it makes condo a much more viable option. I would say I default to reject the argument especially for smaller theoretical objections.

Topicality-- I have not had many of them but I feel comfortable judging them. I think that in general I probably lean towards reasonability. I also think that impact comparison is really important especially in final rebuttals here.

Counterplans-- I think that counterplans should have a solvency advocate and the less generic the better. I probably won’t be very happy to vote on generic PICs, but I think that topic specific ones are good. I do not like consult counterplans very much but would vote on them (just not happily). I feel similarly about process counterplans.

Disads-- I think that there is a chance for a 0% risk of a link. Or if not at least minimal enough risk I will not vote on the DA. I think that the shorter the DA gets to the impact the better. I think when there is a ton of internal links or explanation for the story of the DA it gets hard to follow and seemingly very improbable. Also your generic link evidence is not appreciated. The more specific you can get with links the better.

Flashing-- As a current debater I strongly dislike when judges take prep time for flashing so I won’t (but please.. it doesn’t take longer than 15 seconds to save something to a flash drive).

I will not tolerate any languages that is offensive towards any group of people. Moreover if you attempt to go for arguments that are offensive don’t expect a win.