Helgeson,+Mariah

I debated for Bloomington Jefferson for 4 years and I am currently a freshman on the George Washington University debate team.

I am open to pretty much anything. Debate what you want to debate. That said, if nuclear war is your thing, make sure that you have a good internal link story. Speed is fine. Rudeness is bad and will be reflected in your speaker points. I will vote for kritiks and topicality just as often as CP/DA/case debates. Do what you do best.

Some specifics:

Topicality: I was not a T-debater in high school, but I ran my share of non-topical affs so I am comfortable listening to T-2NRs. Interpretations should stay the same throughout the round, I understand that there is a desire to trick the 2A, but if you trick me as well, it really doesn't work in your favor. I generally default to competing interpretations, but I will evaluate the round in whatever framework the 2NR gives me. I think most spec arguments are a waste of time. I will reward debaters that target specific implementation flaws in plan text and that tailor T-violations to individual affs.

Kritiks: I read a lot of kritikal literature. That does not, however, mean that you should forgo overviews and explanations in front of me. If you run arguments that are fundamentally contradictory I will probably laugh at you. I tend to evaluate kritiks on the link level first. I don’t have a problem voting on terminal defense if the kritik doesn’t link. Kritik alternatives have to be 100% mutually exclusive with the plan or I will probably vote on the perm. At the end of the round both teams should make it clear excatly what the alternative, perm or plan means for the way I vote. I prefer alternatives that could be real-world policy options, but I will vote for Lacanian psychobabble if you explain it well enough. I have watched and debated too many rounds where neither team engages the philosophy and warrants on either side of the debate. I would rather listen to smart analyticals that are responsive than a slew of realism bad.

Kritikal Affs: I have run and written several kritikal affs, so I’m more than comfortable judging them. Fairness is an issue, I’m fine with kritiks of topicality but you still have a burden to prove that you’re within the resolution, even if topicality sucks. Performance is fine but make sure that you address fairness and explain how to evaluate the round.

Counterplans: I am a big fan of well-researched plan specific CPs. I am not a fan of generic CPs that have no intrinsic solvency for the aff. Artificial competition is an issue if the CP is only competitive via it’s net benefits. Counterplans like Consult Uzbekistan, with no comparative solvency to the aff, will be a bit harder to win in front of me. Conditionality is generally ok. If there are 3 + conditional advocacies, I have no problem voting on theory.

Disads: I like well-written disads. I don’t like disads with terrible internal links or implausible scenarios. Politics DA’s are ok as long as you have good link evidence. I prefer scenarios that do micro level (specific senators) rather than political capital disads. Disads should interact with the aff advantages in a substantial way. Creative, case specific disads are the best.

Ultimately, I will vote based on what happens in the round. I’m probably not going to call a lot of evidence, unless the warrants were extended in rebuttals. I won’t do the work for you and I will not vote on new arguments in the 2NR or 2AR. If you do the work, respect your opponent and have fun, you have a good chance of winning ☺