Stahl,+Greta

MSU
Michigan State Debate – Junior Familiarity with the Topic: I have not had huge exposure on this topic. I worked at the Catholic camps for seven weeks last summer, and judged two high school tournaments last December. If your case/negative strategy revolves around complicated topic issues, please explain. Topicality: I don’t think I have any strong leanings on this issue. I generally default that it is a voting issue, but if the aff questions this, the negative must, of course, respond. DO NOT respond to this by saying that topicality is a voting issue for jurisdiction – that is not an argument. Generally I don’t think that topicality is exclusionary/bad for debate, but I certainly don’t foreclose the chance that I could be persuaded otherwise at some point. Disads: Pretty much a good idea. Affirmatives should have both offense and defense in response. Negatives should make clear in the block/2NR how the DA impact compares to the aff advantage impacts. Counterplans: I tend to be neg leaning on most counterplan theory issues (with the possible exception of conditionality, where I have no strong leanings either way). This does not mean I cannot be persuaded that a certain counterplan is bad, but the aff needs to have a compelling reason why the counterplan either a) abused them in that particular round, or b) why the precedent of that counterplan is bad. The aff also needs to explain why voting aff is the only way to rectify this problem. Please slow down or be extra clear on theory debates in order for the sake of my flow. Permutations should include all of the plan and all or part of the counterplan – perms that do things other than this are probably illegit unless you have some innovative reason I have yet to hear. Kritiks: In all honesty, this is not really my cup of tea when I debate, but that certainly doesn’t mean that I won’t vote on them. But know that I may not be as familiar with this literature as you are, and thus your argument may require some explanation. I think negatives tend to do a poor job explaining the “impact” of their arguments, especially in relation to the affirmative, so be clear how the “impact” of your kritik functions (post-fiat, pre-fiat, whatever) and how it inter-relates with the aff. Negatives need to have good answers to the perm, and affirmatives should have reasons why the perm is net beneficial. Framework Questions: I default to being a policymaker unless told otherwise. If this becomes an issue, both the affirmative and negative should have defensive and offensive reasons why their framework for evaluating debate is the best one. Assuming that I default to policy-making when the aff/neg situates me elsewhere is a poor decision. General Comments: Have fun. I don’t care if you’re assertive/aggressive/etc. as long as you’re not rude. People that treat their partners poorly in debate rounds (a sad trend I have observed in a lot of high school rounds) should expect to have their points docked. Don’t waste your cross-ex time getting evidence – do it during