Gretchen+Torres

Experience- I currently debate at Kansas City Kansas Community College, this is my first year in debate. I have judged high school policy and congress (public forum).

I read a slightly critical affirmative with a plan text. I frequently read kritiks (Anthro and Reps K’s most commonly) and I would say that they are my favorite thing to read on the negative, however I also read Disads, Counterplans, and Topicality fairly often as well. Some basic standards of argumentation-

Kritiks- I am obviously a fan of the kritik, I have a basic understanding of many but I won’t claim to be an expert on the lit base of kritiks other than the one’s I read. This does not mean that you should feel obligated to read Anthro in front of me just because I know it; it just means that you will need to know your kritik and be able to explain it well. If you read an alternative make sure to tell me how/what it solves and why it’s better than the affirmative. If you don’t read an alt, that’s cool too.

Disads- I think disad’s can be a good tool in debate, however I’m not a fan of generic disads (i.e. politics) that don’t really link to the aff. If you read a disad make sure there is specific and clear link articulation and impact calculus.

Counterplans- Counterplans are fine. If you’re going to read a Counterplan and a Kritik together I would prefer it if the Counterplan didn’t link to the kritik and I would be inclined to vote on that argument if the aff decided to make it. I think that some CP’s might not be as valid as others but that doesn’t mean I won’t vote on them.

Theory- Theory is a reason to reject the argument. I am generally not persuaded by perm theory.

Topicality- I don’t find topicality to be a particularly compelling argument, but I will vote on it. I will default to competing interpretations unless you give a reason for me to default to something else. I will vote on reasonability but you have to make the argument, I will not deem you as “reasonably topical” unless you tell me that you are and explain what that means.

Case Debate- If you are affirmative I would like to see at least a little case debate in every speech. I think it’s important for the affirmative to constantly remind me of why case outweighs and why case is good.

“Non Traditional” Affirmatives- I am interested by these types of arguments. Please feel free to read them in front of me, but know that I am not really sure of how I should evaluate these types of arguments so you will have to do a really great job of defending your methodology.

With that being said, you should read whatever you want to read. Don’t let my preferences sway you to make or not to make a certain argument that you like or that you think could win the round. I think that judging should be done objectively and regardless of preference if you do a good job explaining your position and telling me why you should win I will vote for you. But if I have to do a lot of work for you in order to reach my decision I will be less inclined to do so.

Some general preferences- - Try to avoid shadow extending. Tell me why you are extending the card, what the warrant does for you, and what argument you are applying it to. - Eye contact is good - Think about what you say. Please avoid using sexist language etc. - I can appreciate sarcasm and sassiness in debates, but please try not to be mean. I think that it is very possible to be persuasive and passionate while still being kind. If I think you are being unnecessarily rude your speaker points will reflect this.

Most importantly, have fun. Be yourself. Put some personality into your speech, have a little spunk. Debate is a chance to make your voice heard, so let me hear your voice!