Lempesis,+Jenna

About me: I go to Mount Holyoke College (class of 2012). I debated for Lexington for four years. I went to the TOC my senior year; I was frequently in elimination rounds before then. I generally ran critical arguments, but I’m not particularly partial to them as a judge.

Topicality: Not the most exciting debates, but I’m happy to hear them. Impacting the argument is key, whether it’s about the justification of your argument or a specific in-round circumstance.

Theory: I’ll lean neg in most theory debates, unless a) the other team’s arguments are overwhelmingly inferior or b) there is actual in-round abuse. I’ll be much more sympathetic to the neg on PICs, agent counterplans, and other traditional arguments; I’ll probably err towards the aff on delay counterplans, consult counterplans, etc. Theory should be impacted about its effect in the round. (When going for time skew, remember that my debate partner was David Sterman.)

Kritiks: I always ran critical affs in high school and my partner mostly went for kritiks, so I’m very familiar with these arguments. Understanding and being able to explain your evidence and the terminology it uses is a must. Impacting, whether the impact is moral or more realistic, is the best way to win. Specific links to the affirmative get you a long way. Likewise, specific answers on the affirmative, especially to somewhat predictable arguments, are the way to win.

Counterplans/DAs: Go for it. Specificity is best!

Debates about debate/other non-traditional forms: The debate community sometimes frowns upon these debates. I think they're important and worth having. If you're opposing these arguments, I'd much rather you engage them on a substantive level than lean on topicality or theory.

In general: Please have fun and be nice to each other. Speed is fine. David Sterman jokes, references, imitations, etc. are GREAT.