RillBrittany

Brittany Rill Stoneman Douglas LD Debate 2008, Boston Debate League Policy Judge 2010 to present - I think that debate is a game. I like fun games. I like intense games. Do with this what you will. That said, I default to a game-playing paradigm in LD, so any goes, so long as you justify it.


 * Theory**- I think that debaters make the rules. And so while I might have my own personal views on conditionality you debaters will be the ultimate arbiters of whether or not conditionality (or any other theoretical issue) is legitimate. While you're free to make the rules to your game, I do ask that you slow down on the theory debate, and if you're going for theory know that I will vote on it but you need to impact your theory arguments. Because arguments in LD and policy are often times confused, don't assume I know how to vote on any specific type of argument.
 * Topicality**- I believe topicality is about competing interpretations and that for the negative to win a T debate the negative needs a clear interpretation, that the affirmative doesn't meet, that is better than the affirmative's interpretation, and a good reason I should vote for the "better" interpretation.


 * Disadvantages**-, these debates are actually pretty fun to judge. I love unique disadvantage debates.


 * Counter plans**- This is another area where what people think about how I view debate and how I actually view debate differ. Despite the fact that I haven't run a counter plan in a very long time I definitely see the strategic and pedagogical utility of these arguments. I personally believe that if the negative gets any fiat at wall, they at the most get as much fiat as the affirmative. With that said my one theoretical proclivity is that I'm not a fan of conditionality; however everything is indeed up for debate.


 * Kritik**- YEAAHHHH MAN! As a philosophy major I hold these types of arguments very close to my heart. I read a fairly large amount of kritikal literature; however that does not mean that if you speak in critical buzzwords that I will automatically vote for you (since I will then probably vote affirmative). I love Zizek, but merely saying "we encircle the real better then the affirmative" probably wont get you anywhere close to a negative ballot. I like Cap debates, Nietzsche, Baudrillard, and arguments critical of debaters discourse. But honestly I'm down with whatever you want to do.

General LD guidelines: a. Tell where to vote, how to vote on it, and why. b. Any framework is acceptable, just warrant why I should prefer the framework. c. Speed is not an issue; go as fast as you want, but slow down on tags and the names of authors to avoid any possible confusion. d. Debate in any method you prefer, if you like to dance, then do so. f. Everything is an argument, I will not exclude anything from the round; don't make me do the work for you.

If you have any other questions just ask in round.