Kelly,+Charlotte

Charlotte (Charlie/Rosie) Kelly Glenbrook South '14 Georgetown University '18

1) Prep ends when the flashdrive leaves your computer :) 2) If you have questions, ask 3) I will call for cards and if they are underhighlighted/not agreeing with the tag, //it will substantially diminish it's// //credibility//, even if it was uncontested by the other side in the debate. Research = important.

I debated for four years competitively in high school, but I'm not debating in college and I haven't worked at a camp; therefore my knowledge of the Ocean's topic is pretty limited and you should explain your arguments thoroughly. I judged a lot of novice debates my senior year, so I have more judging experience than most other incoming freshmen.

I was a typical GBS/Illinois debater - with lots of big stick heg/econ/warming affs and politics 2NRs. //I think the case debate is the most important tool for the negative//, and one that is widely underused, leading to terrible (unquestioned) aff internal links. Solid case debating and research by both sides will earn you higher speaker points in front of me. Impact turns (as long as they aren't dumb) are always a risky, but worthwhile, bet.

I evaluate in an offense/defense paradigm, but I don't think there is 'always a risk' of any impact.

DAs & CPs: I love them, as long as they aren't cheating. I have a low tolerance for obnoxious rider DAs, shunning, condition/consult/lopez/states/etc CPs and speaker points will be punished if it's a throwaway argument in the 1NC. You'll probably be able to tell by my face what I think. Well-researched, specific strategies are always admired, and I think advantage counterpanes are underrated.

Politics: As I said above, I was a fan in high school but I also am going to Georgetown and am I political nut which means I understand that the current state of congress is mediocre at best, and will be sympathetic to logical argument on both sides as to how the political climate interacts with PC arguments and what is and isn't on the docket. A good cross-ex on the DA is always entertaining as well.

Theory: Politics theory needs to be well explained - if the 2AC says in half a second 'vote no' and the block drops if, I'll be very hesitant to vote on it. No neg fiat isn't an argument. 1-3 conditional worlds are probably ok, as long as they are well defended. If you're running contradictory positions (Cap K and privatization CP), I'll probably be more lenient to aff ground arguments.

Topicality: It needs to be well-warrented and explained. I want a clear vision of what each topic would look like and how they benefit debate and how it interacts with the other side's view. I think topicality debates are usually the hardest to decide because there's little to no interaction between both side's arguments.

Finally, K's/Framework: I almost always went for framework against a team that didn't defend a plantext in high school, but I do think it has to be debated well to win. I'm from Illinois, so I don't have a lot of experience with very left race/performance debate so this part of my philosophy will be updated as I interact with it more. Regular K's on the neg - I have a fair amount of experience with the most common K's (security, neolib, heidigger, cap, etc) but for the more obscure K's (i.e. D&G, Lacan, etc) I have next to no knowledge other than listening to Chris Coleman's ramblings for the past 4 years. Default to clearly explaining your argument and how it should interact with the other side's impacts.

Above all, //I'd like the debate community to be a safe place//. Any outright attacks or inappropriate language (racial/gender or other slurs) that make the round uncomfortable for its participants - I will punish speaker points and speak to offenders/coaches after the round.

PS: Don't steal prep and be competent when it comes to paperless. Any jokes about GBS/GBN/Kate Carroll are welcome.