Rawls,+Erin

Hi. I'm Erin. I am a freshman at Rice University. I debated at Pace Academy for all four years of high school. I was a 2A and last year I debated with Jeri Brand. If you want to know what type of arguments I ran, feel free to check out my wiki.

General note: Run arguments that you are good at. Don't completely change the way you debate based on my judge philosophy. If you do a good job debating an argument, I will most likely vote on it. To me, doing a good job debating an argument means in-depth analysis, impact calculus, and explanation. If an argument is not explained and I have no idea what it means for the debate, chances are high I will not vote on it. I will try not to have predispositions toward certain arguments unless you give me a reason I should.

Evidence: I tend to value quality of explanation over evidence quality 99% of the time. I am a big fan of well placed analytical arguments. I will probably not call for many cards unless debaters specifically tell me to (or a big part of a debater's argument revolves around the other team's poor evidence) or there is no other way to make my decision. Especially at the beginning of the year, I think that evidence quality should not be the crux of a debate round. For example, if a card contradicts itself but a debater can explain his/her way out of it logically, I will most likely accept that explanation. But even given that, I hate power-tagging or making illogical arguments based on a couple poor pieces of evidence.

Disadvantages: I don't have a problem with any DAs. However, if you are running some obscure DA with a sketchy internal link, I will generally be more aff leaning (but by no means does that mean there is no way you can win). I love debating politics and I'm very familiar with it. That does not mean I am neg or aff biased on politics -- I have debated both sides many times. Impact calculus is essential to winning DAs -- turns case arguments are especially persuasive if they are well explained.

Counterplans: In my opinion, well placed advantage counterplans are very persuasive. However, if your advantage counterplan has 695873409869 planks, I will most certainly not be able to flow it and I will need you to explain it very clearly in later speeches or cross ex. Any counterplan, if run well, is fine. However, I am sometimes aff leaning on theory for "abusive" counterplans (see theory section). Creative counterplans based on affirmative evidence are always fun. Given that, make sure you have a solvency advocate. Solvency is always handy to have around.

Add-ons: The aff should read them. The negative should answer them and not blow them off.

Impact turns: Impact turns are a generally good strategy. But a lot of developed explanation is necessary.

Kritiks: Update to the update: the cap K is boring. Do something creative. Update: Who needs new 2AC evidence on the K when your 1AC is 8 minutes of answers? Seriously. That said, sometimes a few more cards are necessary. But my favorite 2ARs are ones that go for the aff in some form (if it's strategic). I know little about high theory arguments and I think K tricks are often bullshit, but I will still vote on them if your level of explanation is better than that of the other team. I will have trouble voting on intricate framework arguments if they are not explained clearly. If you explain to me the importance of voting on an argument and how it relates to other arguments, I will vote on it. For the affirmative, I think logical arguments in the 2AC about alternative solvency or the link are handy. I tend to hold the negative to a high threshold on alt solvency and explanation of their vague alt. Alternatives are, for the most part, too vague (but that doesn't mean I think vague alts theory is a winning strategy for the 2AR).

Topicality: I am less likely to give a lot of weight to terminal impact calculus and more likely to weigh arguments about your view of the world through your interpretation and what it means for the debate and future debates. I really don't care about why overlimiting is bad for education if you are not explaining why the other team's interpretation overlimits. I don't have a preference for competing interpretations or reasonability -- I may vote on whichever is argued better. However, if you want me to vote on reasonability, you need to explain why your interpretation is reasonable and why reasonability specifically matters in your debate -- I will not vote on solely impact calculus. I also really dislike independent voters on T and I think that effects T is inevitable.

Theory: In general: Don't read 20 theory arguments in a row. I will most likely flow 0 of them. Slow down on theory if you want me to catch subpoints. Condo: In truth, 2 conditional options is just fine for the affirmative. But I won't rely on what I think is true in a debate round. Good conditionality 2ARs can most definitely win debates. Counterplan theory: I am affirmative leaning on conditions CP theory and multi-plank counterplans. If you have questions about specific theory arguments, ask me before the round.

Things I hate: -When debaters call me "judge." I have a name. You should use it. -When debaters are rude and/or discount their partner or other people in the round. You will lose credibility and speaker points.

Note: A primary purpose of debate is to have fun. Act like it! If you make jokes and have confidence, that makes the judging experience more enjoyable. :)

If you have any questions, ask me before the round or email me @ peacegirl2457@gmail.com