Kuenzel,+Elli

I debated for three years at Ashland HS and now I debate at Emory. I am now coaching at Westminster.

Topicality – my default is competing interpretations, but I’m pretty persuaded by reasonability, especially in instances where there is a substantial amount of topic literature surrounding an aff, or if it’s an aff that has been read all year. To win reasonability, you need to explain what it means in terms of how I evaluate the rest of the T debate (for example – if reasonability means I look at T in terms of just defense, if it means you just have to have a predictable lit base, etc.) Obviously, I’ll still vote on T – you just need to explain a clear impact and reason your interpretation is better. It’s a voting issue, and it’s not genocidal.

Theory – definitely not what I would prefer the debate to come down to, but sometimes it has to happen. I’ll vote on anything if you invest enough time and win it, but my personal leanings are that conditionality/dispo, PICs are probably good, floating pics are probably bad. Although I read states a lot, I definitely have some personal problems with the legitimacy of 50 state fiat, so if that’s something you want to go for, I’m fine with voting on it.

Counterplans – a very good idea. Gotta be competitive and have a clear net benefit. As far as process cps go, I can be persuaded that they’re relatively competitive, but as a 2a, I also tend to think that the aff shouldn’t be forced to defend all the arbitrary processes that the aff could be done through, so perms are also a good option.

DAs – yes please. I’ll definitely vote on 100% risk of defense if its good and well explained.

Impact Turns/Case Stuff – Good if its along the lines of heg bad, prolif good, etc. If you’re considering reading spark, wipeout or something similar, just don’t.

Kritik Stuff – not what I would necessarily want in my ideal round, but I’m willing to listen to/vote on it. I don’t think framework is a reason to reject the alt, probably just a reason you get to weigh the aff. There’s a lot of K literature that I’m not very familiar with, so you need to make sure to explain the arg well. Other than that, I would appreciate links being specific or at least explained in the context of the aff, and you gotta win an impact that outweighs or turns the aff, and a competitive alt that actually solves. I’m really not a very good person to read an aff without a plan in front of, especially if it has little or no relation to the topic. Framework is definitely a voting issue in these situations.

Have fun, don’t be completely awful to each other, that sort of thing.