Bauer,+Jenna

Jenna Joicelyn Bauer Dowling Catholic Class of 2013 Gonzaga University Class of 2017

I really really hate rude/mean people. If you are attacking the person rather than the person’s argument I will dock you substantially in speaker points and generally be upset at you. No need to be fake nice, just make sure you don’t cross the line of attacking the person. I will try to vote against you if you’re obnoxious.

I am a 2N. I love being negative, my bias towards cheating on the neg is there, but that doesn’t mean I won’t evaluate your “they’re cheating” arguments. I don’t require a ton of explanation from the 1A for the 2A to extrapolate on the argument in the 2AR.

Debate things

In terms of K v. Policy debate. I normally do more CP, DA, T, type debates, but generic Ks like Cap, Security, Gender etc. make sense to me because I am familiar with them. I will evaluate your K that I haven’t encountered or don’t have experience with, but I won’t necessarily be familiar with your arguments so explanation is key if you want to win.

Dropped arguments are true arguments, but you have to tell me why they matter or how to evaluate them.

I really like spin, if your argument is just spin and the other team doesn’t call you on it I won’t really care if your card doesn’t say exactly what you said. Consequently, you should read their evidence.

Cross-ex is my __favorite__ try not to waste all your time clarifying, remember cross-ex is for arguments from both sides.

CPs I generally like all counterplans cheating is fun, but don’t be afraid to call them on it. Specific counterplan theory is super useful and persuasive in a lot of instances.

DAs, yeah, they exist you might consider reading them. I really enjoy DA case debates. The more specific the better. There can be zero risk of a link though.

T – it’s a voting issue, don’t drop it. Remember to have some sort of case list. If your aff is squirrely I’m not afraid to vote you down on T. Know yourself and know if you need to spend more time on T. Cross-ex is crucial for topicality especially.

K affs With a plan text and Kish advantages – yeah sure, make sure you do a good job with impact framing.

Performance – tell me how to evaluate things, I'm susceptible to the neg argument that we didn’t know what this meant, now we do, here’s some new arguments. Try and tie your argument back to the topic, gives you a better arg against framework, but obviously up to you.

Other, i.e. change debate type arguments, again, susceptible to the other team getting new arguments as your argument evolves and a lot of times I think framework makes sense as an option against these arguments. Make sure you explain your impacts and roll of the ballot well so I know what I’m voting for at the end of the round. Double up on explanation from both sides.