Wasikowski,+Kellie

I debated for three years at Omaha Westside, and now I am a sophomore at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and I help coach and judge for Millard North high school in Omaha.

I mostly read K affs when I was debating so I am most familiar with these kinds of arguments. I think these are some of the most interesting arguments in debate, but my views on debate have also evolved a bit more and I think that teams reading K affs or kritiks need to do a lot in front of me to prove uniqueness to their arguments.


 * Affirmative arguments:**


 * K affs:** I like these a lot and they give a unique perspective of the topic. I like watching people push the boundaries of debate, but this recognizes that some rules exist in the first place and discussions should at least revolve around the resolution. Affs that are directly related to the resolution that explore it in a new way are super engaging, but I really expect the affirmative to also engage the negative's answers in a way that impacts the arguments out through the rebuttals and directly responds to the neg. A lot of K teams get comfortable reading their framework blocks and cede to make them round specific, and this can be really frustrating to watch too.


 * Policy affs:** I'm more interested in policy affs now than I was in high school, so that's one thing to . I really like to see impacts that are aff specific and have their warrants debated, so I find debates with real world impacts a lot more interesting than generic extinction scenarios. I like to see strong evidence application to make arguments that isn't just a general extension.


 * Negative arguments:**


 * Counterplans / Disads / case:** I'm least familiar with counterplans and disads, but I've judged a fair amount of them. I stress impact analysis on these arguments and explanation for why the argument impact turns our outweighs the aff.


 * Kritiks:** My favorite debates are when the kritik is specific to the aff, so if you’re reading something more common I would really like to see a lot of contextualization and examples to the affirmative. I love to see clash in these debates though, and I think the aff should contest the link level and the impact.


 * Framework:** I'm really interested in framework debates that are well-executed because there can be a lot of clash in them, but in these debates both sides need to do a lot to engage the other's arguments in order to win on framework. But for me to vote on this argument you need to prove that the affirmative violates some rules of debate that are harmful to the overall education or accessibility of debate. I don't like generic framework arguments because I think a lot are untrue, so really try to create a case about the individual round and aff and why framework matters.


 * Theory:** I default to rejecting the argument and not the team, unless you can prove an in round violation that should lose the round for the other team. If you can show in round abuse that is good, and you should establish some default to base the violation around.


 * Overall, have fun in the round and respect each other. I really value education in the debate space, so be nice to your opponents and listen to and engage their arguments.**


 * If you have any other questions about specific arguments, feel free to ask me before round.**