Nelson,+Annelise

Neenah, Valley
I debated for 4 years at Neenah High School, have judged/coached policy debate for 3 years with Valley High School. Rounds judged on this year’s topic: 20+

I will vote for the team that can best persuade me to their position in the debate. That being said, here’s how I feel about different arguments.

Topicality- I will vote on this, but as a neg you must do work to win. I don’t like voting on T that has not been developed in the round. I can go either way on the reasonability vs competing interpretations debate but I think that the aff needs a counterinterpretation to be reasonable.

Kritiks - I'm fine if you run these, but if you want to win, listen up. First, you need to have a specific link to the plan- not just to the “system” that plan operates in. Next, you need to explain the impact and alternative- what does the world look like post-kritik? You must prove that the stuff claimed in your alternative can be achieved by rejecting the policy. Also, don’t think you can win by spewing a bunch of jargon from your 1NC tags- its frustrating when nobody in the round understands what this dense stuff is about.

Generally, I am not a big fan of the pre-fiat/post fiat debate- I think we all know that fiat isn’t real and plan doesn’t actually happen. I am not a fan of having my ballot be a tool for your movement- I have signed many ballots and I don’t know if I accomplished anything with that. I think that for the most part, framework debates are irrelevant, lots of time is wasted here and in the end it’s hard to evaluate the impact to winning your framework.

Disads – I love a good disad! I think you need to have a specific link to the plan- this determines the risk of the disad more than the uniqueness does. Impact calculus with warranted arguments is important.

CP’s-awesome, as long as they are competitive, have net benefits, and are specific. I like external net benefits, PICs are fine too. CP theory- I don’t like judging these theory debates, they usually end up being sort of bad and not getting either team anywhere. I’ll still vote on it if it’s warranted – it’s up to you to explain why something the other team did is illegitimate.

Impact Calculus- I don’t want to do the impact calculus for you, because it means that I will have to intervene. I love to hear “if…then” comparisons in the 2nr/2ar. Also I love overviews- tell me how to vote. But please, don’t put stuff in your overview that also will be on the line-by-line. That just gets repetitive. Good luck and have fun!