Keller,+Maria

> I currently debate for Michigan, and debated for four years in high school, wining speaker awards at numerous national tournaments (ie Glenbrooks, Kentucky)

I worked at the Michigan camp this summer where I judged 60+ rounds for various labs, and have been to a few tournaments throughout the season. > __General: __ > In high school I went for a variety of arguments from the politics DA or impact turns to role playing bad. I have no 'favorite arguments' that will factor in so heavily so as to make me more prone to vote for them. I'm quite content judging a in a politics DA with Heg impact or judging a debate about de-prioritizing trivial impacts. Basically pick what you like best, and do a good job defending it. > > I'm a big advocate of comparative impact analysis and what I mean by that is explaining your impacts not just in relation to the affirmatives but reasons for why your arguments turn their impacts or come first or any other consideration you think gives me a reason to vote for you. At the end of the day the surest way to get my ballot is to do a better job explaining why I should vote for you compared to the reasons the other team is giving me. The team that does the better job of framing the debate usually wins. > > I'm comfortable hearing any argument you want to make. But a few things to be weary of. First make sure you are impacting your arguments, a pet peeve of mine is when people say things and don't impact them. This is especially true on theory arguments, T, and roll of the ballot type claims. Second make sure you are clear, its important for speaker points as well as making sure I understand your arguments. > > > __Topicality: __ > Not my favorite argument, but am open to hearing the debate. I'm open to reasonability or competing interpretations. I don't have an image of what is and what is not topical and than bring some bias from that in, I will only evaluate from a tech perspective on this debate, which means if an aff is horrible for the topic and explodes limits but you argue that in an ineffective manner than you will lose. If you deserve to win the debate I will vote for you, no matter my feelings on topicality. > > __Theory: __ > Theory is fine, I'll vote for anything from Condo to Process CP theory if you do a good job explaining it. Make sure you are doing comparative analysis as well as impact explanation. > > __New Arguments: __ > I will watch out for these but only will do anything about it if you point it out and than impact that. Just saying it is new is not a complete argument, you need to explain why allowing it would be bad for debate. I understand there is time constraint in speeches like the 2NR and will give some leniency but you still need to have a complete argument. > > As for new 2AR arguments - I protect the 2NR (I was a 2N in high school and I feel their pain) but sometimes these need to be made, don't be afraid to make them if you know you can't win without them. Just make sure that you explain A. The argument B. a link to this argument somewhere in the 1AR, if it's a brand new 2AR argument it will probably be a very contrived tie but thats better than none. C. A reason that this argument is justified and why the 2NR should have seen this coming. I will still be averse to new 2AR arguments and probably will side with the 2NR but this is your best chance and you could pull it off. > > __Kritiks: __ > I love these arguments IF they're executed well. I think that most K teams do the bare minimum with the argument and would not get my ballot because they rely on generic links and don't give specific applications. When I was in high school I had links Security links to everything from Poverty Securitization to Food Securitization and link walls to every major team I thought we might hit. If you don't have specific links that doesn't mean give up, it just means you need to innovate. What you should do is give SPECIFIC EXAMPLES of how the affirmative represents the link. > I'm familiar with a lot of critical literature but that doesn't mean that I definitely know of you're super obscure K. You should always make sure to explain the thesis of your K as well as your link arguments in detail. > > __CP's __ > A good specific CP to the aff is always a great debate. Just make sure to explain the difference between the CP and the Aff if it is a confusing one (e.g. you don't need to explain the consultation process in great detail if you read a consult CP, we all get it, it's consult). > > > __DA's __ > These are fine. Politics, plan based DA's, whatever. The impact part of the debate is the most important to me, do this well and you will be rewarded. Don't however ignore other parts of the debate because you're winning the impact, the uniqueness and link are how you get access to it.