Tandet,+Gabrielle

I debated for three years at Mountain Brook & four years at Harvard. I will graduate college in May 2013.

Everything here is a reflection of my defaults absent argumentation from debaters. Defaults can be overridden with arguments.

__**Important Things**__ __Topic experience: none__. Zero rounds judged (a few rounds watched) & zero cards cut pre-TOC. If an argument requires a background of topic knowledge, explain it more.

__Pure offense/defense is silly__. You don't need offense on every flow, just an offensive reason for me to vote for you. I don't want to hear "always a risk" - there may always be a risk, but with good defensive arguments this risk can be so minimal as to warrant ignoring it.

__Argumentation outweighs cards:__ a smart, well-explained analytic > a bad card. A well-spun but just okay card > a fantastic card that's shoddily extended. I am unlikely to call for all of your cards after the round and base my decision on their quality. I think that kind of judging lends itself to intervention. I like it when YOU talk about ev quality, but I don't want to do that for you.

__Argument content doesn't matter__. If you can't win that {racism/patriarchy/death/nuclear war} would be bad, then you are not a good advocate of your cause. Do I have a lower threshold for proving that racism is bad versus, say, hegemony is bad? Probably so, but it's still an argument YOU have to make.

__**Specific arguments**__:

__Can you read your K in front of me?__ - Probably. I'm not ideologically opposed to critical arguments, but I have never read any critical literature of any flavor and do not intend to do so - it's just not my thing. Therefore, don't assume that I know anything about your authors or various K buzzwords you will throw around. Please explain things, the more specifically the better, especially if your argument is really 'high theory.' The same goes for K affs, "performance" teams, whatever.

__Do you need a plan?__ - In debates where the aff doesn't have a plan, I've voted aff more than I've voted neg because people just don't answer them well. *I* liked to talk about the topic and read a plan, but it isn't problematic for me if someone else doesn't feel the same way, and I think there are good arguments on both sides of this debate.

__Topicality__ - No topic experience; keep that in mind for explanation and caselists. Impacts are quite important to me, which manifests itself in two ways. 1: i f the aff proves they have a good enough interpretation of the topic, it'll be tough to convince me to vote neg for an interpretation that is only marginally better if this difference isn't well impacted. 2: impacts outweigh ev quality. I don't really see the point of nitpicking about whose definition is minutely clearer absent a reason why that's important (so, if you think this is important, tell me why).

__Theory__ - SLOW DOWN PLZ. Even if it's dropped, if it wasn't a coherent argument in the first place and/or if you're not going to explain why I should reject the team, don't bother extending it. I don't think the team defending against accusations of theoretical illegitimacy must prove that what they did is net BETTER for debate, just that it's not too bad.

__Disads/CPs__ - Yes please. If you go for a CP, my default is that you have forgone the status quo as an option; therefore, I will NOT kick the CP for you if I decide it is not net beneficial and/or competitive. This can be changed if you explicitly make arguments to the contrary in the 2NR.

__Do you want good points?__ -Be nice, be respectful -Let people answer your question in CX without cutting them off -he-GE-mony, not he-ge-MONy; NEW-clear, not nu-cu-lar -Don't say something is "conceded" when it's not (pet peeve) -Don't give your 1N a million cards to read because you can't cover (the plight of the 1N!)