Stafford,+Hannah

I am currently a Junior at Rutgers University, I debated for four years at the Blake School and I'm currently assistant coaching Blake. I have attended NDT the last two years and have debated at both the 2A and 2N.

Quick version—I will listen to anything, I was very policy oriented in high school, but so far in college I have been very kritikal. Run what you are good at, I will vote on the flow, not my opinions. I feel its really important to do good line-by-line and less overviews.

Long version:

T- Not my favorite argument to listen to, I tend to find T debates boring and there is always a lack of clash. On T debates I think case lists are really good, make sure you prove the abuse on limits and in particular contextualize it to the debate, in-round-abuse is always more persuasive than potential abuse. I tend to lean to reasonability but can be persuaded the other way.

Theory – Like said on T I find these debates similarly boring because of a lack of clash. 1 counterplan and 1 K is probably ok, but anything more than that I can be persuaded by condo. Process counterplans are probably abusive. All theory args except condo are usually reasons to reject the argument not the team. Don’t just use a ton of debate jargon… Just make sure you actually impact your theory. Also, slow down and theory, actually engage in the other teams arguments, don't just read blocks at each other.

Counterplans – I love specific case counterplans, they make the round so much more interesting. Not much to say here, do what you do, specifically though I really like PICs and find them more persuasive than lets say like a process counterplan.

DAs – Not much to say here, just make sure you do a lot of impact calculus, especially turns the case arguments. I definitely would prefer hearing a specific case DAc/case turn strategy over a generic politics DA.

Ks – I really enjoy listening to a good K debate, any K is fine, but I tend to think people just use a bunch of jargon and don’t actually understand their arguments. I am very familiar in the feminism and queer theory literature, and really enjoy listening to these K. On Ks I’m not a big fan of the massive overview style debate, just put it on the line by line it makes the debate more organized. As a framework note, as the aff dont run the FW you must defend a policy action, I think you are much better going for aff must be able to weigh the impacts of the 1ac.

Non-traditional debate –I really can enjoy this form of debate. But there are a few important things you need, one how do you solve for oppression (what the 1ac does to make change) and two you need a clear answer for why you need the ballot. My view on framework is that I do not believe that the aff must defend USFG action but I do think the advocacy should be related to the topic, now this doesn't mean I won't vote on framework, I can be persuaded either way. But, I really find one-off framework debates very boring, you should actually engage in the affs method.

Most importantly have fun, I love this activity and think debaters should always have fun. If you have any questions feel free to ask before round.