Karabulut,+Mimi

Mimi Karabulut, UM'13
 * updated 11/5/11

General info: I debated for three years at Groves and debated at the University of Michigan for a year. I'm open to most arguments and will vote on whatever you bring into the round as long as it's explained well and warranted.

I keep a running clock: speech ends, cx starts, cx ends, prep starts unless you indicate otherwise.

Analysis is extremely important for me to vote on an issue. Impact comparison and the internal link interactions determine how I weigh impacts. Tag line extensions are not acceptable, and I will give little weight to extinction impacts thrown around the round if there isn't a clear story articulated.

Specifics: Topicality - I default to competing interpretations Critiques - If you read a critique, you'll have to clearly explain each facet in detail (ie I don't really like them) DA - Awesome, esp politics. CP - PICs are great strategies. Consult, process, delay - not so cool. Theory - I don't think conditional CPs are abusive and the question of whether multiple conditional counterplans or multiple conditional worlds become abusive vary based on the round. I don't/haven't historically voted on theory, so it'll have to be a pretty abusive round for me to vote there or be explained well, or be dropped. etiquette - be kind.

Final notes: These preferences are based on the arguments I know best. If you want to do something wild, I won't dismiss your argument - explain it well.

Clarity is extremely important. I prefer persuasion over speed - slowing down on important points, making eye contact with me -- those are good ways to signify that an argument is important.

Also, some stylistic things: - when you first start speaking, speak slowly so that I can adapt to your speaking style (for the first 10 seconds, then hit your max speed). - if they drop something big, make sure to point that out at the beginning of your speech/on that flow, not embedded in the mess of everything else.