Adrienne Brovero – Northwestern University -Assistant Coach – 5th Year Coaching - 7 Tournaments – 45 Rounds

Any of the following issues are open to debate. What follows represents the "defaults" I have set in my mind. Absent debate on a particular issue, I fall back on my "defaults."

Topicality - I will vote on well-thought out, well-debated T violations. I do not begrudge anyone strategic uses of T such as time-suck extensions or the use of T to get disad links. On either side, it helps a lot to describe why your interpretation is good for debate, and why their interpretation is not.

Kritiks - I still haven't had too many rounds in which these arguments have made it into the 2NR. So, I am still relatively inexperienced in deciding debates on these issues. A few things that could help me decide: First, slow down. I have difficulty comprehending, never mind flowing, much of the literature kritik arguments are based in when the evidence is read at Mach 5. Second, make an effort to explain your evidence, since I am not nearly as familiar with this literature as you are. Third, specifically explain the link and impact in relation to the specific aff you are debating. Statements like "the kritik renders the aff meaningless" don't help me. I need to know why the kritik means the plan’s solvency goes awry – in words that link the kritik to the actions of the plan. For example: Which part of the harms does the kritik indict? What would the plan end up doing if the kritik turns its solvency? I have a very hard time voting on abstract arguments when little effort has been made to apply them to the specific aff being debated.

Evidence - I try to get down tag/cite/some words for every card. I very much appreciate those who make this easier by reading clearly (as well as partners who notice the judge is confused and prompt their partner to make things clearer). I also appreciate debaters who make it a point to evaluate and compare evidence in the debate. I actually do pay attention to quals. I can't stand anonymous pronouns/speakers in evidence (such as "she says" without an identification of who "she" is, or FDCH evidence which in reality was spoken by some government official). I also do not like to have to read the unhighlighted portions of the evidence. I try to only do it in 2 circumstances: 1) When the content of the evidence is challenged. By this, I mean more than "It doesn't say that." I will read the unhighlighted parts if teams are specifically challenging that author's conclusions or assumptions made in that evidence, or if a team specifically applies arguments made in the unhighlighted portions against the evidence. 2) If I am trying to identify the referent for a pronoun used in the highlighted portion of the evidence. In this second circumstance, I will not evaluate arguments made in those sections, I will simply identify whom "she" or "he" or "it" is. What does this mean for you? 1) Make sure if your ev has reasons that you want to have evidenced, make sure you read them. If you only read the claim, then you only have a claim. 2) If you hand me evidence to read after the round, please make it clear to me which parts of the card were actually read in the debate.

Fiat - Unless someone tells me otherwise in the debate, fiat is the least amount of persuasion necessary to pass the aff plan. Outcomes can be fiated, but not the process. These are questions that probably ought to be debated out when running process disads/counterplans.

Counterplans - I generally lean negative on all those "abusive" or "crazy" counterplans: topical, plan-inclusive, exclusion, conditional/dispositional, international fiat, agent, etc. This not to say I won't side with the aff if the aff does a good job of articulating why it is abusive. Aff teams should take more advantage of situations where the counterplan run is abusive at multiple levels. At the point at which the negative has to fend off multiple reasons it is abusive, their theory blocks may start to contradict. Too many aff teams I have watched have focused solely on one theoretical objection, which gives the negative one easy target to throw their theory blocks at. The aff also needs to explain an impact to their theory arguments. Both counterplan and permutation texts should be written out. If the aff decides to make an unscripted permutation in the 2AC, it should be written out IMMEDIATELY after the speech. (And even then, I am still open to negative arguments about what the exact wording was if they disagree). Absent clarification, at the end of the debate, the existence of the counterplan in the 2NR does not mean the status quo goes away - the neg has two viable worlds (counterplan and status quo) as does the aff (plan and permutation). I also think the statement "They ran a CP, presumption goes aff," without explanation, is a bunch of hooey.