Belanger,+Emma

I graduated from Strath Haven (PA) in 2016, and I did two years of policy debate there. I'm currently a freshman at Hamilton College, where I'm not doing any form of debate.

I'm probably not going to go into much detail here because I'm lazy like that, but for further clarification you can read my twin brother Alexander Belanger's paradigm. He articulates everything better and we are basically the same person when it comes to judging policy debate.

My email is emmabelanger813@gmail.com - if there's an email chain, I want to be on it! Also feel free to email me with any questions you have, pre-round or post-round.

I am okay with pretty much anything in policy debate. I'm just looking to watch and flow a good debate, so please read arguments you're comfortable with and you understand. There's nothing worse than watching someone struggle to answer questions in CX because their coach wrote their overviews and they don't understand anything they're saying in their speeches.

Don't be racist or offensive in the round (or just generally in life). Be respectful!

Spreading is cool, just understand that I'll be trying to flow and if I can't catch what you're saying then obviously I can't flow it. I was used to speed in high school, but keep in mind that I'm not currently debating in college, so my ears might need to warm up to it. I would suggest starting slower and gradually speeding up to your full speed.

2AC - if you don't go to case and do a line-by-line answering the 1NC case args, I'll be pissed. It's your responsibility to defend your aff, so please do it. I was a 2A so I know how difficult the 2AC is in a hard round, but if you know your aff inside and out then you'll be fine.

I have not done very much research on this topic, but I know the general arguments and affs that people run. As long as your aff/DA/K/CP/whatever is coherently put together and I can flow it, I shouldn't have any problem understanding it.
 * China Topic **

In order for the neg to win on T, every level needs to be thoroughly explained and impacted. I don't want to hear "extend the voters for fairness and education" - that's not an extension. You need to contextualize the violation to the round and do a good job of extending your impacts, as well as answer every argument from the affirmative.
 * Topicality **

Disads are my favorite off-case by far, mostly because I was a 1N in high school and I loved my China Tech 1NR on the ocean topic...otherwise I just think these are the most straight forward of arguments to make against an affirmative, and if you have good evidence and use it to your advantage, there's no reason why you shouldn't be able to go for the DA and win the round. Aff - please make arguments in your block on every level of the DA if possible, it sets you up incredibly well out of the 2AC.
 * DAs **

I'll be honest, I'm not the biggest fan of Ks in high school debate. If they're not too complicated, it's obviously fine, but I personally struggle to understand new theory in the span of a single debate round. If you're going to read Baudrillard or Foucault, you'd better understand what you're talking about and be able to explain it and contextualize it to the round. This doesn't mean don't read a K; I'm just saying that I want it to be explained and impacted reasonably well and in an understandable way. If Ks are your thing, read 'em. You do you :)
 * Kritiks **

I like them, just explain and contextualize them. Make sure your solvency advocate actually functions, and try to make your CP as specific to the aff as you can.
 * CPs **

I feel pretty much the same way about K Affs as I do about Ks, I need a lot of explanation and contextualization throughout the round before I am fully willing to sign my ballot for the aff. Also, please do your best to explain any technical terms you use, especially if you repeat them more than once or twice. I have a lot of experience debating against K affs, but I've only ever really read one, so I'm not that knowledgeable on the arguments you'll be making.
 * K Affs **

Yeah, I'm good with theory. Just don't spread it...that's extremely annoying to listen to and try to flow.
 * Theory **