Quackenboss,+Katie

Katie Quackenboss she/her

I have debated for four years at Georgetown Day School.

First and foremost, debate is a difficult activity and every student who chooses to devote time and resources to it deserves respect and kindness in every round. Regardless of background and the direction the debate ends up going, I hope cross ex’s are a delicate balance between polite and argumentative, respectful and strategic. In-round violence will affect speaks and possibly the ballot if I’m convinced of it.

I think the best debates occur when teams read the arguments they want to, and I am not so overtly inclined or disinclined to a certain argument style that you should change your strategy dramatically in front of me. That being said, specific notes below:


 * T:** Affs should at least be generally in the direction of the topic. I am generally good for the Neg on T as long as it is impacted beyond fairness and edu and it is contextualized.


 * Ks:** I am traditionally a policy debater, but have varying levels of experience with kritiks ranging from different flavors of cap/neolib to queer futurism to Lacan. Assume I am not familiar with high theory, terms of art, or philosophical jargon. K links should be multiple and aff-specific. Alts should be sufficiently built up by the neg and sufficiently torn down by the aff. An aff ballot will most likely be on the perm and aff impacts, but I hope/expect the aff to engage the neg on the content and theses of the kritik. K debaters should not sacrifice tech or organization for rhetoric. FW can sometimes mean the K doesn’t need an alt, but aff answers to this are persuasive.


 * DAs:** Case-specific disads are great and strategic! Politics is super cool and super intrinsic. Neg, make sure your politics link story makes intuitive sense, and aff, make sure to point out when the link story does not make intuitive sense. Don’t answer impact defense with another impact card unless it has a different warrant—compare warrants and explain their interactions in impact debates as you would in a link debate.


 * CPs:** I am good for the aff on abusive CP theory. I will judge kick when convinced to. Bad solvency advocates are bad and no solvency advocate is silly (some exceptions, but few).


 * K affs/FW:** I appreciate K affs when they are debated well. I hope they are generally in the direction of the topic even if they are planless, but it is not an automatic neg ballot if this is not the case. FW on the negative should be extremely aff-specific with a well-thought out T version of aff and impacts beyond fairness and edu especially in identity-based debates. Aff should have good offense on T version of aff as this is the easiest neg FW ballot. Identity and social location debates are important, but again should not sacrifice tech or organization for rhetoric. I am an educator unless told otherwise.


 * Theory:** 2 condo worlds probably okay. PICs and PIKs, floating or not, are probably bad but I will vote neg on them. Please don’t read generic theory blocks especially if you plan on going for it; it’s so boring. Disclosure thory is persuasive. In round abuse claims are more persuasive than those of potential abuse.

- I hope the 2nr and 2ar begin with ballot framing and impact calc. - .2 speaks if you show me good flows after the decision! - I am emotive – when I don’t like where you’re going it will most likely be clear, but that doesn’t mean stop mid-sentence and change strat, instead explain and expand.
 * Misc:**

[]