Collins,+Erin

Erin Collins Background: Debated four years at Emory. I am not a full time coach anywhere - this means I do not spend all day cutting cards ; however, I have been traveling with Westminster this year and am fairly familiar with the topic.

Read whatever argument that you feel you deploy the best. I am here to evaluate ** your **** debate ** not your ability to adapt to whatever I find most interesting. I'll do my best to come into the round with an open mind; however, that being said, I firmly believe it is impossible for anyone to truly be a blank slate. Topicality: Comparing definitions, setting standards etc. should come early in order to impact topicality later in the debate. Be specific and provide examples of what affs the affirmative's interpretation would allow. Keep in mind that I am __** not **__ coaching on this years topic so many of the acronyms or assumptions that you take for granted to be known I am not necessarily familiar with. Feel free to go for t, you just may need to put in a bit more explanation. Theory: Theory - like any other argument - should have an identifiable impact. I don't like cheap shots and two second theory extensions. Vote against the arg not team is often a persuasive argument to me absent a clear articulation of why that's not sufficient to resolve the abuse claims being made. Conditionality's fine to a point - I really don't see the need to use the "lets through out a grab bag of strategies and see what sticks" method. It seems to simply detract from debates. Critiques: Despite being from Emory this is probably the literature base that I am the most familiar with; however, that doesn't mean that I will necessarily know the phrases you choose to describe your critique by. It also means that I will expect you do the research to make your critique as specific to the affirmative case as possible. A well crafted ** aff ** ** specific **critique strategy will make me MUCH happier than a generic one off where you throw in random K's of X impact throughout. Alternatives need attention and explanation - what is the alt trying to accomplish? does it solve the aff? does it create new paramaters of educational fields? you tell me. K Affs - these are fine but much like K's on the neg I prefer that they are topic specific and engage the literature being presented. This doesn't mean you have to have a particular plan advocacy but you best be ready to debate topicality with more that "t's genocidal/abusive/racist etc". The aff should work towards "doing something the topic outlines" and if you think you can accomplish that without a plan text I need clear explanation of how. Disads: Disads are fine - case specifics Disads are better. Make impact comparisons, turns case, etc. Tell me how to view the debate through the lens of uniqueness vs link. Counterplans: I find arguments like "perm do the counterplan" to make a lot of sense against consult/condition/etc. counterplans; however, if the counterplan arises out of solvency evidence from the topic literature base I will be much more willing to listen to them, but I need to understand what the net benefit is and what distinctions can be drawn between the plan and cp that are more than just semantic distinctions. Aff specific counterplan strategies are ideal. Other things: 1. Be nice. This means to the team your debating as much as it does to you partner <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: baseline;">2. Stealing prep makes me angry <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: baseline;">3. The topics chosen for a reason. Talk about it. Be creative if you want, but there is no reason to ignore the topic specific literature that's available to you.