Cornish,+Nicole

I will listen to any argument presented, but I think it is up to the debaters to explain why I should vote on it. As long as you are winning that it is an argument that I should be listening to, then I will evaluate it. This also means that the debaters are responsible for articulating how I evaluate each position. I need to know how my ballot functions.

Speed - I am fine with speed. My policy is that I will yell clear twice in a speech. If you still are not clear then I am probably not flowing you. Remember that I am __not__ reading your evidence along with you nor do I have a copy of it while your opponent (probably) does.

Topicality - My default position is that there needs to be an abuse story. I am open to arguments otherwise, but be aware if you expect to win on potential abuse you need to spend a lot of time arguing why I should vote on potential abuse.

Disads - Whatever is probably fine. I think your internal link story should make sense.

Counterplans - Whatever is probably fine without any theoretical objections won by the aff.

Theory - Make sure you tell me how my ballot functions. I tend to think I should reject the argument, not the team. If you think I should reject the team you are going to have to do a lot of work to convince me that that is the best remedy.

Kritiks - I'm not as well versed in the literature as I would like to be. I do not have a problem with Ks (aff or neg), but don't expect me to know what says about the topic. As such, without reading me the evidence, just telling me what the author says does not resonate with me. I want to know how my ballot functions in the world of the alternative and on what scale (am I taking a stance in the debate community, is it just an affirmation of the discussion we had, etc).