Weinberg,+Hilary

Hilary Weinberg Deputy Maricopa County Attorney, Homicide Bureau Alum of ASU 3 years of NDT and CEDA debate.

I attended ASU and was on the Forensics team from 1987-1990. During this time I did both CEDA and NDT. You won’t find my name on any big national trophies but I brought home a good share of hardware and had a great time.

As for my judging philosophy, I am pretty liberal, but there are a few things I want to relay.

Procedurally, Topicality for me is always a voter. However, there are limitations and I likely would not vote for the negative on an argument that requires the affirmative to define every word. I am interested in arguments where the Neg can establish why the Affirmative is so far out there that they could not have been prepared to address the 1AC.

Cross examination is important and not just a tool to suck up some prep time. I would expect hard questions to be asked and I would expect answers. I would just ask that everyone is treated with courtesy.

I do like DisADs. I don’t require them to be unique based on the unknown 1AC, much less the sheer volume of information available, but I will evaluate the links. I also like to hear counterplans, but will evaluate them for solvency.

For the Affirmative, I am not a fan of one person doing the insides of both 2AC and 1AR. I realize there are times when this has to be done if someone is filling in at the last minute, but in general, I don’t like this practice.

Speed is not a problem. Debate has made me a court reporter’s worst nightmare. But if you are going to talk fast, make sure you can do it without mumbling. I would appreciate a brief roadmap of the order in which arguments will be addressed so I can organize my flow pads.