Schiess,+Kaitlyn

Liberty University
Second year debating for Liberty University.

General
I lean fairly policy, but I read a good amount of Ks on the neg and find those debates to be incredibly interesting. I may have some theoretical proclivities, but I generally think that everything is open for debate. You should do what you’re good at and what will be fun for you.

I think that debate is a game, so tech generally comes before truth, but that only goes so far. Smart arguments should take precedent over spreading a bunch of cards.

Debate should be fun. Have fun and be nice.

Ks
I don’t have a ton of familiarity with every K author, but I’m pretty familiar with most common Kritiks. Regardless of my familiarity, explaining your argument well is obviously better than extending taglines and stringing philosophical jargon together. Articulating a specific link to the aff and the way the alt functions is important. K tricks can be underutilized when you use them without explaining how they function. (When your link or epistemology indict functions as a solvency takeout, use it that way.) I’ll give the aff a lot of leeway on the perm, so winning a strong link is more important to me than spending a lot of time on the alt. It often comes down to framing: if you win the framing of the debate, winning that your link is strong enough or that your alt isn’t vague is easier.

DAs
I love DA/case debates, and I love politics debates. A strong link is more important than uniqueness, but if you argue uniqueness determines the direction of the link, etc, and no one contests it, I’ll buy it. Smart analytics are more important than a lot of mediocre cards. Making smart connections between the case and the DA is important- often, affs don’t spend enough time answering good “da turns case” arguments.

CPs
Counterplans are fine, non-generic counterplans are better. Winning/beating the net benefit is probably the most important part of winning the counterplan, but a well-articulated solvency deficit can be devastating. I don’t think affs utilize theory as much as they should in beating generic counterplans (process, agent, etc).

Theory
I love theory debates. I love debate, and I think debates about what practices are the best for it are both interesting and productive. Because of that, I don’t have very strong preferences on a lot of theory, though I do think you should slow down and that abuse stories are important. Other than condo, I think most violations are reasons to reject the argument and not the team, but I can certainly be convinced otherwise. Two conditional advocacies is probably okay, but even that’s debatable and anything more than that is definitely debatable. I am fairly strongly predisposed, however, to think that having a K and a CP/Da in the same round is a good thing**/**not abusive, so articulating in-round abuse is important. I’m less likely to vote on potential abuse on most theory, but it’s definitely enough for topicality.

Topicality
I default to competing interpretations, but I can be convinced that reasonability is good. Articulating an abuse story is great, but outlining what the topic looks like under your interpretation is better. Give me a caselist for your interpretation and why the affs you limit out/include are better.

Framework
Like theory, I think that because debate is good and important, debating about how it should function is also good and important. I find most link turns to framework more convincing than most impact turns. (Fairness and education are probably good. You’re more likely to win that you meet those standards than you are that those standards are bad.) I’m fairly convinced that having a decent relation to the topic and affirming some static advocacy is good.