Pressling,+Kim

Pressling, Kim

**__Education:__** The John Marshall Law School University of Wisconsin-Madison Glenbrook North High School

I am a criminal prosecutor practicing in Illinois. I find this to be relevant to the current topic because I am well versed in constitutional issues, particularly Fourth Amendment issues - and I love to hear good debates on these issues. I am an Assistant Debate Coach at Niles West High School. I am an avid sports fan, so any sports analogies or references made during speeches will be appreciated.
 * __About Me:__**

1. I do not consent to the electronic recording of any rounds of which I am a judge. If you wish to electronically record a round I am judging, you must ask me (and the other debaters in the room) first and obtain my (and the others') express permission. This express permission requirement holds true even if you wish to start electronically recording mid-round. 2. I am hearing impaired. Thus far, I have made a personal choice not to wear hearing aids; therefore you must speak loudly and clearly in front of me. If spreading negates your ability to be clear and loud, then you would be wise to not speak as quickly in front of me. As long as you are loud and clear, you can speak relatively quickly in front of me. However, I increasingly find that I am more persuaded by teams that speak somewhat fast but are efficient, smart, decisive, and concise. If I cannot hear you or understand you I will tell you. 3. Because my career holds me to high ethical and professional standards, I demand the same of the debaters in front of me. Any type of argument that is lewd, sexually explicit, promotes actual physical violence including but not limited to rape and suicide, or otherwise puts me in a legally compromising situation or makes any debater feel unsafe will not be tolerated. Should this type of behavior occur, I will stop the round immediately, drop the team promoting this type of behavior, and report it to the tab room/relevant authorities. The same holds true for teams that engage in racist, sexist, homophobic, or other discriminatory behavior. You will lose in front of me if you engage in any of these types of behavior. 4. Ethics violations are something that I take extremely seriously; but if you accuse someone of an ethics violation, you must be correct and able to prove it or you will lose. Likewise, if you are proven to have committed an ethics violation, you will lose. 5. I love evidence comparison debate. Teams that read their opponents' evidence and cross examine the flaws in the evidence and compare the evidence in speech are persuasive to me, particularly on politics/disad/counterplan debates. I would rather hear you compare the evidence than have to call for it after the round! 6. I love when 2NR/2ARs use "even if" statements and do not assume they are winning every argument in the debate. That being said, I hate when teams do not make judgment calls and go for every flow and argument in the debate. This is far less persuasive to me than a rebuttal that collapses down on a few key arguments and really goes for those arguments, explains them, does an extensive impact calculus not only on that flow but on the round as a whole and on the various worlds should they exist in the round (c/p alone, c/p + net benefit, perm, net benefit alone, etc.) and tells me a good story. 7. I consider myself rather middle ground on the policy vs. critical spectrum. I constantly vote for both policy arguments and critical arguments, but I have some different standards for each type of argument.
 * __Preliminary Matters:__**

I love a good topicality debate, and I find this topic to be ripe for those kind of debates should teams take advantage of the opportunities in front of them. To me, topicality is a go big or go home argument. If you make the choice to go for topicality in front of me, spend most if not all of your 2NR on it. I view topicality in the lens of competing interpretations, but often times, teams forget the plan text that was read in the 1AC. Do not do this! Good topicality debates evaluate the plan text vs. interpretation(s) vs. counter interpretation(s) (throughout the entire debate!) and then really explain the limits + impact debate. What I find most persuasive are teams who frame their topicality violation not as one that completely underlimits the topic and makes it incredibly small but presents a fair middle ground for what the topic should be. You must be able to present a case list for your interpretation(s) and your counter interpretation(s) AND explain why those cases fit the various interpretations. You have to remember that I may not have heard of every single aff on this topic so throwing out an acronym or some obscure case reference may be meaningless to me without some context/explanation. Please explain the IMPACTS to your limits debate. If a negative team just reads blocks back and forth, doesn't spend much time on T, and doesn't do an adequate job of explaining the points I've made above, I can be persuaded that an aff is reasonably topical. To me, ASpec is NOT a topicality violation and 99% of the time is not a real argument.
 * __Topicality:__**

Rock. I am willing to listen to most counterplans, but well researched PICs are some of my favorite debates to judge. In the 2NR/2AR, I want to hear about all the different competing worlds and what the impacts are in each world. Please do not forget to explain the net benefit and aff teams why a CP links to the net benefit (assuming it's a d/a to aff). Often times, teams simply make these claims and breeze right on to the next argument. Read each other's evidence! Compare the evidence! I am typically of the opinion that theoretical arguments are reasons to reject the argument not the team, with the exception of conditionality and some performative contradiction arguments that are VERY well explained and well impacted. In round abuse stories are much more persuasive to me than potential abuse stories.
 * __Counterplans:__**

__**Disads/Case Debate:**__ Are awesome. Here is where evidence comparison is absolutely critical, especially when it comes to uniqueness and internal links as opposed to card wars. It's really important for affs to answer d/a turns case arguments, and it's always more persuasive when neg teams make these arguments. Tell the story! If I think the aff has proven why your d/a is non unique or why there is virtually no internal link, I have no problem voting against politics/da despite a lack of offense.

I would say over the years I have developed a higher standards for kritiks. As a negative team, pointing out a problem with the status quo is not enough. You must engage and interact with the affirmative. I am much more persuaded by teams that derive links from specific 1AC evidence, lines in aff cards, specific plan actions, etc. than teams that argue "you use the state, so you link, the judge must vote neg". Likewise, I am much more persuaded by teams that paint a picture of an actual alternative, what it does, how it functions vs. just reject. That being said, I love when aff teams point out when a neg team has not done the requisite work on the alternative or how a neg's generic link story is outweighed by reasons why aff's advocacy of the state in this instance is a good thing. Similarly, if an aff wants to go for a permutation argument, they need to do the same level of analysis I explained on kritik alternatives above. Fair warning: I do not consider "death good" to be a real argument. Additionally, given my career, you would be wise not to run arguments that advocate shutting down all prisons (distinct, of course, from prison reform). Utopian arguments sound lovely but are neither realistic nor persuasive to me. On another note, I do not sit around in my spare time and read critical literature. Do not throw jargon and buzzwords around without explanation and expect me to be persuaded by them.
 * __Critical Arguments:__**

DO NOT BE RUDE - to the other team, to me, or to your partner! I appreciate debaters who maintain courtesy, professionalism, and maturity in rounds. This applies even when it is not your turn to speak. It applies in cross examinations, while you are prepping, and it applies while the other team is prepping. It is a pet peeve of mine when teams are loud and disruptive while the other team is prepping, and I will call you out on it.

I find debate to be an important activity with significant educational value, and I expect debaters to treat it as such.