Raley,+Gillian

Experience: Debated on the national high school circuit from 2013-2016.

In general, I’m open to most types of arguments if they are presented neatly and clearly (e.g. claim → warrant). Evidence is useful in many ways, and always feel free to critique something being used by the other side -- but if nothing is said, I’m going to assume everything in the sources is legit. I’ll rarely call for evidence after the round. I’m used to speed, so go as fast as you want but make sure you are speaking clearly. If I can’t understand you, I won’t flow what you say. I also won’t let you know when your words are incomprehensible because it’s your responsibility to make sure I know what’s going on. In terms of in-round behavior, please just be kind to one another and know that being in this room ready to learn something is half the battle! You’ll do great!!

Now to my opinions on more specific arguments.

Topicality: Open to it if it’s done well. If the Aff is common and reasonably within the topic’s scope, I’ll often err on their side. But then again, I won’t vote against the Neg for just throwing it out there. Neg would have to do some serious finessing to win against an arguably reasonable Aff, but it’s not out of the realm of possibility.

DAs: Always down for a good DA. Doesn’t matter if it’s straightforward or unconventional -- if it’s argued well, I’m there.

Ks: I think Ks are often a hit or a miss. I’ve had experience with equal amounts of really convincing Ks and really outlandish ones. There’s no distinguishable pattern among the ones I’ve loved, other than the fact that they were clearly articulated and made sense in the real world. If you’re considering a K that is incredibly abstract, probably don’t run it. I usually find myself erring on the side of the Aff in those cases, especially if the Aff is very concrete. Certain Ks will just really get me, though. I’m a fan of anti-capitalism arguments and race Ks, for example. It really just depends -- use your better judgment.

CPs: I’m not the biggest fan of CPs. Unless you feel like it just really fits the situation perfectly, I’m probably going to see it as a bit of a cop-out (especially if they’re only slightly different from the Aff). Going back to good argumentation, though, if your link chain is clear and reasonable, I’m open to voting for one. Can easily become an abusive stance to take, though.

FW: Always think these turn into super interesting debates, so go for it if you feel compelled.

Some notes on ending the round: In your final minutes you should be super clear on what arguments are still alive and why you win the round. Impact calc is very practical, so use it. I’ll rarely vote on one-liners that were never explained or fleshed out until the final speech. I’ve seen it time and time again, and I think it’s sneaky and slightly unfair. If an argument is important to your 2AR/2NR’s story, make sure I know that earlier rather than later -- that makes me more likely to vote on it.