Gil+Epner,+Mia

__ **Experience** __ UC Lab '13 UC Berkeley '17

__ **About me** __ I debated on the national circuit in high school, and currently debate in college.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at miagilepner@gmail.com.

--**I know absolutely nothing about the Surveillance topic. I didn't work at any camps this summer. Explain things.** --**Debate has a winner, a loser, a judge, and speech times. The rest is up to you.** --I used to have a paragraph about how I'm unbiased when it comes to no-plan affs vs framework. The more I judge, the more I realize that's not true. I think a debate tied to the resolution is good. I think the aff should present a plan. If both teams debate perfectly, I would vote neg on framework vs a no-plan aff. That being said, good debating can overcome this preference. --I don’t dislike Ks. I like it when debaters spend time on regional overviews clearly explaining link, impact, alt, and framework. The more specific the link explanation is in the context of the aff, the better. --I am an awful judge for Heidegger. --Specific case focused debates are good. --I will unhappily vote on theory cheap shots, but only if you impact them. --0% risk exists --Good analytics > bad cards --Tech > truth --I like to minimize the amount of cards that I call for. --I will gladly kick your counterplan for you. Just tell me to do so, and make it explicit. Saying “status quo is always an option” is insufficient. --Explain what happens if the aff wins the perm --Assuming that the neg doesn’t have a case specific strat and both teams debate perfectly, generic 2NRs from best to worst are T, politics + case, impact turns, generic K, politics + process CP, generic CP + internal net benefit. --You don't need to take prep time for flashing, as long as you're quick about it. --You should keep a record of marked cards. It is not my job to write down where you stopped.
 * __ The just-before-the-round, short version of my philosophy __**

If there’s impact calc in the rebuttals, T debates can be amazing. If there is no impact calc, T debates can be atrocious. I default to competing interps absent a discussion of reasonability. “Reasonably topical” isn’t persuasive to me, while “reasonable interpretation of the topic” can be. In general, I think limits impacts are stronger than grounds impacts.
 * __The big boned version of my philosophy__**
 * Topicality**

If you win offense-defense good, I evaluate the debate in that framework. I can be persuaded to vote on terminal defense. I think link determines the direction of uniqueness. Uniqueness provides defense to a link turn debate, but it does not “determine” the direction of the link. They’re good? What am I really supposed to say? Articulate how the disadvantage interacts with the case, or visa versa. This means that I need internal link calculus in addition to impact calculus. Also good. I even like outlandish stories.
 * Disadvantages:**
 * Non-politics**
 * Politics**

Neg burden to tell me to judge kick. Aff burden to explain what happens if they win the permutation. The "necessary versus sufficient" framing of CPs means nothing to me. The most logical interpretation of that phrase is that aff solvency deficits must have impacts. This is obvious. I don't need a catchphrase to tell me that. A much more productive use of time is explaining why the solvency mechanism of the counterplan resolves the aff's impacts and why their solvency deficits don't matter. If you have a different interpretation of sufficiency framing, explain how it implicates my evaluation of the solvency of the CP. I’ll vote on them. I hated them as a 2A, loved them as a 2N. If you can defend their theoretical legitimacy and competition, go for it. Important note - legitimacy and competition are two separate things. The impacts of one can be crossapplied to the other, and the two can compliment each other, but they are distinct arguments.
 * Counterplans**
 * Plan contingent CPs (consult, recommend, conditions, etc.)**

I have experience with kritiks and don’t mind them, but I am very far from being the best K debater out there. This means that you shouldn’t assume that I know what your buzzwords mean. Kritiks need (contextual) explanation. Get links out of the 1AC and cross-x. Impacts should have specific turns case scenarios. Root cause, serial policy failure, and self-fulfilling prophecy claims become arguments when you provide explanation and scenarios to go with them. There is a limit to my comprehension of Heidegger. It is very low. I have never seen a debate where the affirmative impacts were completely excluded nor where the kritik was completely excluded after the 2N went for it. Assuming there isn’t a major technical error, framework often comes down to the affirmative gets to weigh their impacts and so does the negative. A different question is whether the affirmative impacts are epistemologically sound, which the aff should win substantively. It's probably needed. If you do have one in the 2NR, it would be very nice to know what it does/means. If it’s a floating PIK be prepared to defend it.
 * Kritiks**
 * Framework**
 * Alt**

Offense and defense mixes are good. Internal link takeouts are important. So is impact defense. So are solvency takouts. In-depth case debates are usually better debates.
 * Case**

I have no preference in terms of whether no-plan affs should be engaged from a framework or substantive perspective – both can be interesting. Clash and line by line matter more than normal in these debates, so I implore you to be organized. I think predictable limits and topic based education impacts are (in general) easier for the neg to win than institutional engagement impacts. The best framework debates involve arguments about why the technicalities of government detail about the topic must be engaged with. The best aff responses to this are that debate doesn't provide this technical training. If you choose to go for an institutions arg, be good at explaining why the aff incentives a model of debate that ignores institutions. If you're answering an institutions arg, be good at explaining why institutions can be accessed without an advocacy of instrumental engagement.
 * “Non-Traditional Debate (aka Debate)”**
 * Framework**

As a 2A, I was consistently frustrated by judges who called for cards and reinterpreted the debate based on evidentiary analysis not in the speeches. As a 2N, I was consistently frustrated by judges who didn’t call for cards, and let the 2A get away with hyperbolic extrapolations from atrocious evidence. I don’t know where the happy medium is. I think I will end up calling for at least some evidence in most debates. I will try my best to read the evidence through the lens of the debating.
 * Evidence**

--Favorite teams to watch were GDS HS, Stratford JS, Edina SS, and Carrollton DS. --Favorite judges are Dana Christensen, Calum Matheson, and Mary Gregg. --If you’re funny then please make jokes. If you’re not, please don’t. --I am an aggressive debater. I don’t mind if you are. There are caveats, of course, such as insulting a team that’s obviously less experienced than you or making a racist/sexist/ableist/hetero-normative slur. --Don’t swear (too much). Adding a little color to your speech is fine, making me feel like I’m at a brothel is not and just detracts from your credibility.
 * Additional info**

--Contradictions --Not taking advantage of contradictions --Gendered language --Taking forever with flashing. Email threads are usually faster. --Flowing the speech doc. --Excessive use of the word “spillover” on K debates (in reference to the solvency of the alt) --Non-disclosure if the argument has been broken. (Also, new affs probably do justify extra conditional options) --Cheating – more than a pet peeve. It can warrant a loss and minimum speaks. Clipping cards is under this category, but there must be a recording to prove this. Reading a piece of evidence cut out of context may be, if the other team raises an objection.
 * Pet peeves**