Wancewicz,+Molly

Harker class of 2017 Rice University class of 2021 I debated policy at Harker for 4 years, and I was a 2a for the last 3 years.

A few things: **Don't be rude** - If you're mean to your opponent or partner your speaker points will reflect that. **Planless affs** - I’m definitely neg-leaning in the planless aff vs. topicality debates. I find topical version of the aff arguments very persuasive. Fairness is a less compelling topicality/framework argument to me, but I would still vote on it as a net benefit to the TVA. **Kritiks** - Besides the basics like security, cap, and colonialism, I’m not familiar with much of the literature of these arguments, especially high theory. Contextualization to the aff is extremely important to me in the kritik debate, and I find generic kritiks that aren't contextualized very unpersuasive. I also find that most k alts are implausible/prohibitively vague and/or don't solve the link - I find CX pressing the plausibility and details of the alt are really effective. In addition, I am often very willing to vote on case outweighs and/or case solves the K given that these arguments are well-explained in the 2ar. **Disads and case** - My favorite debates. I think politics disads and their spinoffs (reverse politics, wag the dog, etc.) are good, and topic-specific disads are great as well. Technical case vs. disad debates are great and have a big impact on speaker points. I have a higher threshold on voting for neg arguments that aren't contextualized to the aff. **Counterplans** - Need to have a solvency advocate. I like specific counterplans and I think DA+CP is a great 2nr, but I'm not a fan of cheating CPs (see theory) and I'm pretty aff-leaning on the theory question for these CPs. **Topicality (vs policy affs)** - I’m willing to vote on T. Even if your violation is bad, I’ll vote on tech in the T debate. **Theory** - I'm pretty aff-leaning on theory questions regarding cheating counterplans like consult, add-a-condition, object fiat, etc. PICs are also probably bad but I would still vote for one if you win the debate. My ballot in any other theory debate (e.g. conditionality) would come down to in-round abuse and other arguments about the specific debate.

**FOR LD SPECIFICALLY:** - I think I have a higher threshold than most LD judges for voting on theory. There needs to be significant in-round abuse for me to vote on theory. - I'm a big fan of util as a framework - I find it persuasive and I think we should default to it (but can still be persuaded otherwise and will vote for you if you win another framework). - I'm probably not a good judge for a phil debate. In these debates, both sides need to explain how their philosophy means that I should evaluate the debate, and the implication of their philosophy for the rest of the offense in debate. - In LD I've noticed people consistently going for multiple offensive arguments (e.g. a DA and case turns and theory) in the NR. I think it's crucial to collapse down to one argumentative strategy in the NR.