Venezia,+Cara

Venezia, Cara (Chattahoochee/UGA)

I debated at Chattahoochee for four years and I am a freshman at UGA.

Topicality- T is always a voting issue. I default to competing interpretations unless convinced otherwise, but I can be persuaded by reasonability arguments. T is never a reverse voting issue, genocidal, oppressive, and MAYBE but almost never outweighed by theory. Specificity is always preferred- what the topic looks like, and impacting of standards. I have not judged a lot of debates on this topic so be precise and descriptive when you go for T.

Kritiks- I went to Chattahoochee. That being said i'm not a big fan. If the 1NC starts off with one random critic and turns into different random ones i've never heard of in the block, i'm probably not going to be persuaded to vote neg. I can understand them and vote on them but I am easily persuaded by permutations and lack of specificity of the kritik. I believe that the aff should get to weigh the plan versus the competitive alternative.

Critical Affs- Defend a plan……

Theory- Conditionality is probably good, I could be persuaded that multiple conditional advocacies are bad but there should be arguments about why the possibilities of contradictions make that true. Any other theory debates should just be well debated with lots of explanation - i won't vote on things that were brought up as blips. Should be well warranted. If you want to go for it try speaking slower and clearer on theory. Counterplan competition debates should be well debated if either side plans to win on them but i'm willing to vote on how the debate progresses.

Case and DA- Impact calculus is important- do analysis as to why you win what you do. Good comparative impact calculus is crucial and DA turns case arguments are appreciated. It will get you very far in the debate.

Be nice and be funny. Have fun. I hate grumpy people. Don't be a jerk.

If you have more questions, please see: http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Davis%2C+Maggie