Bonaduce,+Cecilia

I debated at Notre Dame for 4 years and at Cal for 1 year. I really enjoy watching debates no matter what arguments are being run and will vote on pretty much any argument so long as it is debated well. At the end of the debate I would just like you to impact and explain everything as much as possible.

I’ll reward speaker points primarily on the following things: - Comparison – both of evidence and arguments. Please do more than say why your author is qualified or why your impacts are more likely. Again, I’d like to be able to draw from your speeches exactly why I evaluated your piece of evidence more favorably than your opponent’s. - Strategic cross-applications - Ethos - confidence is important to m, especially in cross ex. - Politeness - I hate when debaters tool their partners unnecessarily. I also hate when debaters are outright and/or uncleverly rude to opponents. - Language - bad language --> low speaks. There is no need to impact arguments with inappropriate language - it isn't persuasive, it's just annoying. 

Here are my views on some specific areas:

1. Theory – I think probably 90 percent of “voting issues” are not actually voting issues. I will not vote against a team solely because the 1AR drops severance¸ and in most cases the argument should be rejected, not the team, and saying that is pretty much enough for me. When going for a theory argument, just make sure to impact it really well and try to point out some actual abuse that occurred¸ and have a counter interpretation that is fair for both sides. I think conditionality is good, multiple conditional advocacies are worse but probably still okay, but you can definitely get me to vote aff if you impact your args well enough. Process counterplans/anything that does the whole plan is probably bad for debate but I will vote on them if the theory debate is solid; however, I will lean aff on those theory debates.

2. Topicality – I’ll default to competing interpretations, but if it’s really close at the end of the debate I’m more inclined to vote affirmative. When going for T the negative should give a list of topical affs under their interpretation and list all of the ground that was lost. Reading cards that prove why the aff explodes the topic is also a big plus. I generally think a smaller topic is better.

3. You should note that I have a very high standard for counterplan competition. Competition through net benefits is usually fine, but when it comes to process CPs and other PICs I’m very likely to vote on a perm unless the plan __necessitates__ doing more than the counterplan, or the 1A answers a dumb question in cross-x.

4. Kritiks – Neg: you can run reps Ks, capitalism, Nietzsche, sound really smart or use big words all you want, but at the end of the debate if you don’t have very specific reasons why the K turns each advantage then I’m probably just going to vote aff. When running the K there is a ton of potential for very high speaker points if you can be REALLY specific in analyzing the aff’s evidence, quoting cross-x, giving historical examples, etc but overall I am pretty tired of bad kritik rounds. “Fiat is illusory” is obviously stupid, but I will vote on “x comes first” arguments if you tell me why the K actually undermines the reason I would vote for the affirmative. Things you just shouldn’t do: forget about your alternative in the 2nr, advocate the plan in any way. Also, make sure you are in-depth in your analysis of the K, don't assume that because I may know the lit that I will give you leeway on being thorough.

Aff: I like very straightforward stuff. Link defense helps against all their turns the case args, as the negative usually will try and twist or exaggerate your words. Just like the neg, you shouldn’t forget about your case either, and always attack the alt’s ability to provide uniqueness for the K and solve your case. Don’t drop stupid hidden floating PICs or anything like that, cause I actually am more likely to vote on these dropped args than on things like severance bad.

Framework: Aff gets to weigh their advantages. If you need to rely on “fiat is illusory” to win the debate then just don’t run the K. I’m very unlikely to not let the neg get their alternative, and I also don’t really like this new “need an agent to your alternative” argument, as long as the alt isn’t TOO shifty (you do need a text). Regardless, most alternatives probably don’t solve all the aff and are poorly debated.

5. Finally, please try and make all your arguments as early as possible. I really don’t like new arguments even in the 1AR unless you explicitly justify them. I was a 2N so maybe I’m a little less likely to listen to “new 2AR spin” or whatever you wanna call it. The 1AR should do impact calculus and tell me how arguments interact just like the 2NR/2AR.