Gjerpen,+Katie

Katie Gjerpen Affiliation: Niles North (2011-present) Previous: Lexington, Groves

__**Relevant changes:**__ As a professional educator, I view debate primarily as an educational game. //What does this mean?// I think students should use the debate space as a means to advance their own education through various arguments, while also providing a safe space for their opponents to engage and clash with the arguments and statements made. I think it's misguided to limit students' debate education by excluding particular styles or specific argument choices, however, I strongly feel there should be sufficient ground for clash to occur. My views over the past year have evolved and I continue to grow as a coach and judge. I do not think the affirmative must read a plan or specific advocacy, however, I do think the affirmative must defend a position that provides a stasis point for a debate with clash to occur. Particularly for this year's topic, I am persuaded by "topical version of your Aff" arguments against Affs that don't defend an advocacy that is, at a minimum, tangential to the resolution. I'm not an auto-vote for topicality or framework, and I wish more negative teams would also engage with the substance of the Aff's arguments. If there isn't sufficient ground for you to generate clash, though, topicality is probably a good 2NR option in front of me. At the end of the day, I view myself as an educator first. If I think your arguments are morally reprehensible or offensive, I am unlikely to vote for you. If you clip cards or cheat in any other way, I'll vote against you - I read along with the speech docs. If I think you're overly aggressive or rude, I'll dock your speaker points appropriately.

__**Stuff you probably already know about me:**__ Topicality - I default to competing interpretations unless I'm told otherwise in the debate. I think it's important for debaters to impact their arguments, and I'm most persuaded by a well developed limits or ground argument. Theory - Generally, a reason to reject the argument not the team. If you want condo to be a viable 2AR option in front of me, the 1AR needs to invest some time. I am sympathetic to the neg when the 1AR spends 20 seconds on condo and the 2AR somehow manages to spend 5 whole minutes on it. Disads - There's not always a risk. Do work for me on nexus questions of the debate - tell me why I should prefer your evidence. I dislike reading through a bunch of uniqueness cards at the end of a debate, and having to unilaterally decide which team's cards are less bad. CPs - PICs are great. Other CPs are fine too.

Case debates are underutilized – the neg shouldn’t be afraid to go for presumption.