Kim,+Liz

I debated for four years at GBS and three years at Harvard. I was predominantly policy oriented in high school and most of college but have gone for critiques in college and have read some critical literature. Without a discussion of how to evaluate topicality in the debate I err on the side of reasonable counter interpretations. I don’t particularly like theory debates and need clear impacts to the standards in order to vote on theory. I will default to reject the argument not the team unless you clearly indicate why a theory argument is a voting issue. I won’t vote on theory cheap shots that are not explained or adequately impacted. I like case debates. Evidence comparison, explanation, and application of warrants in the evidence is necessary. Reading a lot of cards and not explaining them will do you no good. I will read evidence if necessary but will rely on debaters’ explanations and characterizations of the evidence to inform what I do with any evidence I read. Cross-x is an opportunity to illustrate to me that you are polite and intelligent, not to be an jerk. Clarification questions are ok, but cross-x is a time to highlight cards that are good/bad or to set up your arguments. Good cross-x = better points. I think smart arguments are persuasive on disad internal link questions. I will weigh truth arguments, i.e. factual claims about the likelihood of a disad internal link. If a disad doesn’t make any sense – say so. Saying “turns the case” without a warrant is not an argument. An argument requires both a claim and a warrant. I am ok with performative arguments – I think teams still need to explain the necessity of their position and the viability of the politics of the affirmative (or negative).