Hannah Buzil ParadigmLast changed 11/16 11:30P CDT
University of Illinois 2021
Debated 4 years of policy at GBN (2013-2017)
firstname.lastname@example.org ----->email me with q's or for the email chain
I can't find my old philosophy so this will have to do; it's the short version.
TLDR: Be fun to judge. I'll vote on anything that's explained well. I haven't judged on this topic. I love a good da + case debate (it's my fav). Read Charlie Foster's paradigm, it's great.
TOP LEVEL STUFF:
I haven't judged in a bit, and not on this topic so please keep that in mind. I'll vote for pretty much any argument, especially the more I understand it. I was a 2n, if that tells you anything. I really really really like when arguments are articulated well and explained without too many buzzwords. Clarity>speed for speaks.
Love 'em. Explain them well and I'll love theme even more.
I love them as well, especially when they are specific to the aff/advs. I'm good with any counterplans as a starting point but aff can obviously convince me otherwise.
Not my favorite, mostly because I have trouble understanding them. Just make sure if you go for this or are defending against it you explain your arguments very well and avoid buzzwords.
Love it, but probably not the best thing to go for on this topic, as I haven't judged on it yet. If you do go for it or are defending against it make sure to really explain the violation and impacts.
Do what you think is best. Again, I'm not well versed in K lit and I never went against a lot of non-traditional affs. As long as you make me understand what you're arguing and why you should win, I'll have no trouble voting for you.
Clear road maps, sign posting, and contextualizing your argument to the overall debate are always good.
BE FUNNY. DON'T BE MEAN. DON'T STEAL PREP. I like good cross-ex, especially when it's applied to later speeches. I like nuanced arguments that are well explained throughout the debate.