Name: Isabella Mandell
Affiliation: Langham Creek High School
*Current for the 2020-21 Season*
Policy Debate Paradigm
I debated for Langham Creek all from 2016-2020. I did all debate events but CX will always be number 1.
I think AFF should relate to topic but if you have some weird and good argument that you can defend against T i'll respect and judge fairly. When I debated in CX we should always go for strong weird arguments so if you can pull it off, do it.
Good with spread as long as you speak clearly.
Disadvantages – DA + CP or case in the 2NR are good regular NEGs to me and easy to follow, even in V you can with regular debates. Specific turns case analysis that is contextualized to the affirmative (not blanket, heg solves for war, vote neg analysis) will always be rewarded with high speaker points. Comparative analysis between time frame, magnitude and probability makes my decisions all the easier.
Counterplans – I think that PICs can be an interesting avenue for debate, especially if they have a nuanced or critical net benefit. PICs bad etc. are not reasons to reject the team but just to reject the argument. I also generally err neg on these questions, but it isn’t impossible to win that argument in front of me. Condo debates are fair game – you’ll need to invest a substantial portion of the 1AR and 2AR on this question though.
Kritiks - K debate are always interesting, the wilder the better. Just make sure you can defend it.
Topicality - T debated are always interested and good to me. AFF should be help to the topic of debate, but if you can defend it that makes it an even better AFF. Even if the NEG argument is stupid AFF can't drop T in flow, you'll lose to a T argument if you do.
"Strange" Arguments / Backfile Checks - I love it when debate becomes fun and interesting! I ran them all the time, favorite is still Wipe-Out, so feel free to run them
If you want to have a email chain use PuppyMandell@gmail.com or to contact me.