Butler,+Aniela


 * Juan Diego Catholic ‘11**
 * Michigan State University ‘15**


 * __Updates for 2012-2013:__**


 * Transportation topic:** I was in the Butler/Repko/Strauss/Gjerpen lab for 4 weeks over the summer at the SDI. Since then, I haven’t really been involved with the topic.

-CP competition: I think I’m more persuaded by the ideas the aff isn’t committed to certainty or immediacy. CPs that just do the aff through a different process need a robust defense of why that counterplan is legitimate and how it competes. -States CP: the more I debate, the more I find myself really disliking the states CP for not being real world. That being said, I think the negative still almost always wins it’s at least okay for debate. -Truth really does matter -The politics disad is good and does have an internal link -I’ll probably kick the CP for you in the 2NR
 * Things I now believe since I wrote my philosophy the first time:**

-Reject the argument, not the team -**Have a plan.** Seriously, if you don't you should strike me. Being "related to the topic in some way" doesn't count. -Clarity -Being polite -Try or die is really important -Reasonability on topicality -Evidence and hard work matter a lot -Impact turn debates are generally not executed well
 * Ideas that have grown stronger:**

I’ve been thinking more recently if there are arguments I would never vote on under any circumstance. I can’t really think of any, but I’m sure OSPEC comes close.


 * For the most part, the old stuff still applies. Questions? Ask.**


 * Old stuff:**

__**Topicality:**__ I lean very heavily towards the aff on most topicality questions. That being said, I think the aff runs into a lot of problems when there are true/well articulated case lists or topical version of case args. There should be a comparative discussion about what literature would exist for the aff/neg under each interpretation.

__**Theory:**__ negative on most theory questions. The only exception is leaning slightly affirmative on consult/condition CPs being bad. Conditionality is fine, the more advocacies you have the more trouble you run into. ALL theory arguments are a reason to reject the argument except for conditionality (very strong feelings about this).

__**Kritiks:**__ love it. __For the aff:__ The most persuasive 2ARs are focused around the aff, what advantages the kritik doesn’t remedy, why that advantage is true, and how that outweighs the kritiks external impact. If you are in a very bad place if you don’t answer turns case, root cause, serial policy failure, kritiks of fiat, epistemology/ontology/methodology etc. first, floating pik, and all those other k tricks. You should really make an effort to address the nuances of the kritik. Don’t link turn. __For the neg:__ You must win an external impact to your kritik, and a reason why it turns every 1AC advantage or a reason why the kritik remedies an advantage. There should be a very high level of explanation, and the more you apply that to the aff the better.

__**Non-traditional affs:**__ Gotta have a plan. If you don’t, you should probably strike me. **If you rely on arguments that say debate is bad, you should probably strike me.** If you have non-traditional advantages, but defend a plan where the federal government takes a topical action, I’m a fine judge for you.

__**Closing thoughts:**__ You should be sassy, strategic, and clear. Please don't yell. Cheaters will lose automatically. If you have any other questions just ask, I like to talk.