Leach,+Brittany


 * Background:** I debated for four years in high school at Millard South HS, and I'm currently sophomore debater at UT-Dallas. I've done both policy and K debate.

- I'll vote for pretty much any argument as long as you're winning it on the flow and it passes a basic check that there's a claim, warrant, and impact (or, if you prefer, a story persuasively explaining the good reasons for something - evidence can take many forms as long as the core content is still there) extended. You should go with the strategy you're most comfortable with and I'll try to evaluate it as fairly as I can. This means you should read my comments about specific arguments as being my predispositions, not firm rules. - The more work you do in the last two rebuttals closing doors, pointing out key arguments and how you win them (or win in a world where you're losing them), and explaining why your impacts come first, the better off you'll be. - I generally default to offense/defense but it's possible to win zero risk or tell me how to evaluate the round outside of that paradigm. - Speed is fine but flowability is necessary, so go as fast as you want as long as you're clear.
 * Overall:**


 * Topicality:** I am equally easily persuaded by both competing interpretations and reasonability. I consider T like basically every other argument, so I don't think I have a particularly high or low threshold for voting on T. Ks of T make more sense when you tell me what your K means for the traditional T line-by-line (like, does your K give you a way that you still meet their interp in a roundabout way? is it provide a counter-interpretation? is it a reason T isn't a voter?).


 * Framework:** You should tell me what it means if you win it (do I reject some argument or type of argument that they've run? vote against them? let you weigh your impacts?) and what it means if you lose it (tell me how you can still win).


 * Theory in general:** I'm disinclined to vote on cheap shots like "must define all words," but I also understand that sometimes you wind up in situations where it's the most strategic option. Substantial time must be invested in the last rebuttals in order to win my ballot on a single theoretical objection, and the aff will get some leeway to make new arguments against hidden one-line cheap shots that are blown up later (the more ludicrious the theory argument and the sketchier the "hiding" is the more leeway I'm willing to give), but complete drops of clearly stated, standard theory args will almost always mean a neg win. It's easier to win that I should reject an argument than that I should reject the team for reading an argument unless you provide a good explanation of why a certain kind of abuse requires a ballot. If you want to go all in on theory, you should probably have either an interpretation that solves their offense or defense that neutralizes their key args. Controlling impact calc (ie, winning that fairness outweighs education or vice versa) also gets you pretty far.


 * DAs:** Definitely fine. Caveat: I'm not a huge politics person, so a little extra explanation on the scenario (particularly the link and internal link) of your politics DA in the neg block is helpful to crystallize your position for me.


 * CPs:** I like them. I don't have any strong preferences for or against certain types of counterplans. I think literature can sometimes justify an otherwise abusive CP mechanism, because if there is a qualified solvency advocate arguing for your CP that seems like a reason it's relevant to the debate and important for education.


 * Kritiks:** I like them. I have a basic familiarity with most Ks commonly read in debate. As a general rule, the less frequently your argument is run and the more your argument relies on distinctions between two readings of a particular text or author, the clearer your explanation and distinctions will need to be. I'm most familiar with the literature on gender Ks and Nietzsche Ks, so if you're reading arguments in one of those two veins, less explanation is probably necessary for me to understand your argument.


 * Performance/Project:** I think the community has room for a variety of styles, and I think performance debate can be really cool and can make arguments in innovative ways. I am sometimes unsure why a stylistic difference is grounds for a ballot (so I prefer that you articulate the meaning of your performance as soon as possible). If style is an important part of your advocacy, explain what it means in terms of my ballot. I think challenging structures of debate which are supportive of exclusion is good for the community, but I also think there is value in traditional debate. Basically, the rules here are the same as on any other type of argument - tell me why you win and be respectful.


 * Speaker Points & Respectful Behavior:** Clarity, efficiency, strategic vision, smart and assertive cross-Xs, humor, respectful demeanor, and smart argumentation will all help your speaks. Being disrespectful to your partner or the other team causes them to decline in proportion to the magnitude of the abuse. You will not lose points for reading an argument I personally consider absurd (killer robot armies, aliens) or for anything that I personally object to philosophically or politically (gendered language, abortion = murder) or for crass language alone (graphic metaphors about shit)...BUT creating a hostile environment for your fellow debaters will not be tolerated (racist slurs, genuine threats of physical violence, actual physical violence) (meaning points will be tanked and even a weak protestation by the other team will likely be sufficient to get my ballot).