Alsgaard,+Hannah

Hannah Alsgaard

I will vote for anything within the bounds of decency. Basically my paradigm is this: the best debates are ones in which the debaters make the arguments they want to make in the ways that they wish to make those arguments. You should do what you will. Personally, I think that the framework debate is the most important part of the round.

My love for the game of debate was shaped by the debates that I engaged in as a debater and the vast majority of those involved debating the merits of the case and whether or not the plan was net dis/advantageous. I have debated teams that debated differently, and as a judge I have voted for and against those teams.

All arguments are acceptable to me. But, you must impact your arguments. For whatever argument you make, there should be some ultimate reason why I am voting for an argument, and you should make sure to bring that up in your final rebuttal along with reasons why your impact outweighs that of the other team.

A couple of practical matters:

(1) I will flow what you say. It is to your advantage to follow the flow as the round progresses.

(2) I pay particular attention to the evidence when flowing. I am committed to the position that debate is a spoken activity, and I will not read your cards at the end of the round unless there are (very rare) special circumstances. It is much more likely that I am going to flow your cards than your taglines. If you want me to know what the evidence says, be clear when you read it. Speed is irrelevant; clarity matters.

(3) No, I don’t care if you tag-team or what-not. Yes, I do care if you are rude to your partner or the other side. Be nice.

(4) If you refuse to provide me framework, I will default to policy-maker.