Cambre,+Megan

Megan Cambre Emory University '14 Chattahoochee '10

Constraints: Chattahoochee, Johns Creek (class of '12)

Anything that’s not covered here, please ask. I am more than happy to explain anything I can.

Kritiks. Explanation and clarity is vital. I’m not well versed in general critical arguments and have absolutely no knowledge of topic specific kritiks. Despite my deficiencies in knowledge, I’m in no way opposed to teams going for these arguments and often think they are a strategic option. That being said, I have much less knowledge here than on most other issues, so be sure to explain fully. If you think you are being too simplistic, you’re probably debating the kritik well for me. I think framework for the affirmative is usually an uphill battle that doesn’t get you a whole lot. Perms seem to be the most compelling affirmative argument for me, especially when combined with indicts of the alternative. Negatives should counter with a specific link analysis – don’t just read cards, point to affirmative arguments and evidence to make your point.

Theory. I’ve been both a 2a and a 2n so the best advice I have is be reasonable and explain what the benefit to inclusion of this practice. Conditionality is probably the only voting issue; everything else is a reason to reject the argument. My threshold for theory is lower than I would have thought after being a 2n, but I think combinations of multiple theoretically objectionable issues are increasingly hard to answer and affirmatives should spend time here. Slow down on theory blocks.

CPs. I think these are the best arguments in debate. Explain the net benefit – it doesn’t have to be very large – it just has to outweigh the solvency deficit for me to think it’s a good strategy. Both sides should set up how I should evaluate the CP debate early on it the debate (whether offense/defense, sufficiency, try or die, etc). Consult and condition counterplans border on the objectionable scale, although I think a specific solvency advocate can alleviate some of those concerns. PICs are almost always good.

Disads. Lots of impact comparisons with nuanced turns case will get you far in front of me. I think there can be zero chance of a disad or so close to zero that it should not even be considered regardless of the consequences. Win a link to the affirmative.

Topicality. Another one of my favorite arguments. The negative has a high burden for explaining what the interpretation includes and does not. Case lists and examples are incredibly helpful for characterizing this portion of the debate. I think predictable limits are really the only standard that matters and I default to competing interpretations absent a warranted reasonability debate. That being said, negatives need to win that inclusion of the affirmative makes the debate worse, not just that their interpretation is slightly better. For K affirmatives and performance teams, you should tie your arguments to the resolution and the USFG. Policy debate and education are important and I will not be easily persuaded otherwise.

Lastly but not least, have fun and be nice.