Carrane,+Hope

**Hope Carrane** **Glenbrook South '16** **University of Kentucky '20** **Coaching Affiliations:** none Email (please, please, please, put me on your email chains/email me with questions): hscarrane **AT** gmail **DOT COM** Last updated 11/30/16 ** ABOUT ME/TL;DR PARADIGM: ** I debated at Glenbrook South High School in Glenview, IL, for 4 years on the national circuit (TI, Latin America, oceans, surveillance), under Tara Tate, Jon Voss, and Sara Sanchez. I did a LOT of novice judging and coaching my junior and senior years. I'm a first-year debater at the University of Kentucky, where I'm studying political science, neuroscience, and Spanish, and I am coached by Lincoln Garrett, Dave Arnett, Donnie Grasse, and Ava Vargason. I worked at the Northwestern Debate Institute this summer (pre-China topic). I'm a 2A/1N. You should debate how you want to debate, and not over-adapt. I think debates are exponentially better when teams are in their element, and it makes for enjoyable debates to judge. With that being said, because I'm a human being, I have predispositions. I'm strongly of the belief debate should be about the resolution and affirmatives should defend USFG action (this, however, does not mean you cannot make arguments about the relative quality of the FG as an actor, and I would vote on it, but this is the direction I strongly lean in). If post modern French dudes are your jam, don't pref me. The aff gets to weigh their impacts, and death is real and bad. Specificity is your friend, and being able to do evidence as appropriate-be it spin, or just pointing out the inaccuracies in evidence (and these two are NOT mutually exclusive) will get yourself in my good graces. I would say I'm technically oriented, but as I get older, I think truth becomes important and how you are able to minimize or maximize issues is crucial. Good impact calculus makes or breaks, and I find it most persuasive when debaters outline meta-level issues and compartmentalize from there. CX is a great tool and one of my favorite things about debate, so use it wisely. K debate is at its pinnacle when your links are specific and contest a fundamental truth of the aff and your alt can resolve it (this is something I see younger debaters blow off). Use your aff against the K-applicable impact turns are always great-and you'll be fine. T debates have too often devolved into defense vs. defense, so explain why your interp is offensively better. Conditionality is not great, and I used to feel a lot more strongly about it, but I'm becoming more and more ambivalent, so convince me. If you're aff you don't need a counter interpretation to win conditionality debates. Call it conditionality. I don't care about any other theory questions besides conditionality and conditions CPs and any combination therein, so don't waste your time reading them. My personal favorite strategy is DA/case, but you should do you. Good evidence, please. Last but not least, I love debate. It's given me so much, and it's something I take very seriously. Be respectful, kind, and treat this activity as it is-something special-and we'll get along just fine. The only debates I have judged on this topic were at the Northwestern camp for 6 weeks (~15-20 debates), so my in-depth knowledge of the topic is limited. Please bear that in mind if I'm your judge. You're going to lose me with acronyms and buzzwords (not that you should be relying on those too much anyways.) I'm probably not the person to break a very gritty and specific topic strategy with for this reason. ** Argument by Argument: ** ** Ks/Framework: ** Most of my meta-level ideology in regards to how I think debate should work is above. I'm incredibly sympathetic to framework and think the aff should defend the FG, but that doesn't mean you can't convince me otherwise. Impacting out your theory debates and picking a large "heading" in terms of theory debates and funnelling from there is the most persuasive to me. I find fairness, education, and then decision-making the most persuasive in order. Don't be afraid to innovate. Be excruciatingly clear with the line by line on framework, and don't think this is something you can blow off. It'll help both you and me. "In the direction of the topic" isn't an interpretation to me and means nothing. I haven't judged high school too much, but I would think people would assume by my institutional affliations I'm horrible for the K. If it's your thing, go for it. K debates are the best when the links are specific and intrinsic to some premise of the aff, the alt is able to rectify those issues (please explain your alts) and has a shot at overcoming the permutation. Aff teams-please use your aff to your advantage, and I love impact turn debates on the K when they work (read: NOT racism/sexism/homophobia/ableism/transphobia good). In terms of K lit I'm most familiar with generic cap/neolib, gender and ability arguments, and to a lesser extent, those about race. The aff always gets to weigh their impacts vs. the K, and extinction outweighs. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">I said it above, but if post modern French men are your favorite, please don't pref me. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">** Topicality: ** <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">I want to be as forthcoming as possible with this for everyone's sake. I am not a huge fan of T debates. I think they too often get lost in the shuffle and come down to arguments that are 2 ships passing in the night. If you do go for T, keep in mind the following: I'm more sympathetic to the aff, and especially if it's something in the plan text that's reasonable. Win why your vision of debate is better than the aff and why the aff's version of debate is worse. My chief complaint is that too many 2NRs are just "their interp is bad" but not enough "their interp is bad, and here's how ours makes up for it". I default to competing interpretations, and I love aff innovation args. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">** Counterplans/Theory: ** <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">I'm a big fan of strategic counterplans, and even ones that aren't super specific, like states. Clearly articulate what the counterplan does and how it solves back solvency deficits. I'm affectionate to solvency deficits outweighing net benefits, and I think the link debate here is important otherwise the net benefit is just an FYI the CP can avoid. Net benefits aren't sliding scale questions. Explain the permutation-how does the aff interact with the counterplan, the net benefit, both, in the world of the permutation? Don't be afraid to press on PICs or process/conditions CPs, especially if they're conditional. I still think conditionality is bad, but you could probably convince me otherwise at this point. I don't care about any other theory arguments (ie, they're not convincing to me). The aff doesn't need a counter interpretation if they prove the practice is bad, and I think any numerical c/i on theory is arbtirary with not a whole lot of intrinsic offense. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">** DAs: ** <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">I love them. This is my bread and butter. I think what's lost with DAs is you have to tell a story with it, and if you can cohesively weave arguments into a broader picture with technically executing the line by line, you are going to be rewarded accordingly. I love impact calculus and I don't mind if you invest a little more time than usual in it if it gets you more in the long run. Compare on the internal link level. Good evidence always helps, but with that being said, if the DA the other team is reading is a flaming hot dumpster fire, smart analysis wins out over cards. I don't find politics theory convincing (sorry, Dave.) and I love the politics DA...I'm just not sure it'll be much of a viable option given the current political climate. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">** Case: ** <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">I love good case debating. It's a lost art. It's become a trend to sort of ignore it, and I think I'm a lot more hung up on the case debate than most people my age, which absolutely isn't a knock on them, but rather something to be mindful of. If you number your case arguments in the 1NC, your points will get a boost. Please be careful of interaction between case and off-case positions and be clever with it. Offense on case is a wonderful thing.
 * <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">2016-2017-China HS Topic **


 * Miscellaneous/Other Points of Note: **
 * <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: inherit; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 11.2px; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle; vertical-align: middle;">If you're into PGS China or whatever, please preemptively strike me from your pref sheet. If you read death good or ** any sort of argument advocating suicide (regardless of how theoretical), please strike me. **
 * <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: inherit; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 11.2px; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle; vertical-align: middle;">Same thing with any sort of reprehensible argument....no (insert form of oppression) good or anything in the vein of viewing those oppressions as acceptable.
 * <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: inherit; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 11.2px; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle; vertical-align: middle;">Clipping cards with evidence of a team doing so in the round will get you 0s and a loss.
 * <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: inherit; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 11.2px; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle; vertical-align: middle;">People who've been very influential in debate ideas, if you're wanting more context for how I think: coaches affiliated with GBS/UK, Buntin, Andrea Reed, Seth Gannon & Chris Callahan (otherwise known as "dad.")
 * <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: inherit; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 11.2px; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle; vertical-align: middle;">Be clear. Speed = # of ideas communicated clearly per minute.
 * <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: inherit; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 11.2px; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle; vertical-align: middle;">Good natured jokes about AJ Byrne are appreciated.
 * <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: inherit; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 11.2px; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle; vertical-align: middle;">Be nice. We're all here giving up our time, and debate is something really special. Be courteous, gracious, respectful, and kind.