Dunlop,+Hannah

I am open to all types of arguments; I believe every aspect of the debate can be up for debate. I have about 7 year’s policy experience in both High School and College. That said I try to follow the offence defense paradigm and try to be as objective as possible but sometimes concessions force me to be more interventionist then I would like, which is why I really like explicit frameworks, which could be framework, impact calculus, or just context, for direction in evaluating the round and why I should vote aff or neg.

I only evaluate what was said in the round and prefer in depth explanation to blip debate. I definitely prefer quality to quantity in both arguments and evidence. If you extend a well warranted analytic with analysis it will get you farther than extending 4 cards with no explanation. The more you engage the other team’s arguments the more likely you will be to get my ballot.

Speed is always fine although I really appreciate clarity. I find when you focus on speed you lose both clarity and speed. So don’t be overly concerned with speed. The more variation in your inflection the more enjoyable and enthralling you are to listen to and thus the better your speaker points. Although speaking skills will only get you so far, foremost you must resolve substantive issues first.

Framework is the best and most explicit way for me to evaluate the round. Be clear about your framework. I don't think that a policy option is necessary nor do I fundamentally believe in critical education. But I do believe that education is the point of debate and that some sort of reciprocity is necessary. That said I am always a sucker for a “fairness is a fallacy” argument, it is just so true.

In regards to theory I really try to be a blank slate but am probably more sympathetic to the aff. Blippy block like theory debates do not sit well with me. You have to try and clash with the other team even if that is just taking a couple seconds to explain were your arguments fit in or apply to your opponents.

Topicality to me is more about competing interpretations. T is never a reverse voting issue, unless of course there is some sort of critical turn. I tend to think that the aff must in some way affirm the resolution thus I am sympathetic to a well argued loss of core negative ground standard.

I think a good da can be devastating. Although that requires link explanation and good impact calc for me to evaluate your da like you want me to.

I am open to all cps but like most people prefer a specific PIC, I don’t particularly like consultation counterplans but will vote on them.

Kritik explanation should be specific to the affirmative even if your evidence is not. I definitely need in depth link, impact and most importantly alternative explanation. If I don’t know what your alt does or your impact is especially in context to the affirmative I most likely won’t vote on your kritik.

Good luck and try to enjoy yourself because that always makes for the best rounds. My job is to be supportive and helpful, so always feel free to ask questions both before and after the round.