Elizabeth Bennett ParadigmLast changed 3/3 9:14P CDT
add me to the email chain- firstname.lastname@example.org
Currently debate at the University of Iowa. Debated four years at Niles West High School. I coach at Iowa City High.
- Tech is most important, and I'll vote on just about anything. I don't really have too strong predispositions about arguments, so go for whatever you want.
- Evidence- I will read evidence during the round to try to understand arguments, though I don't like to draw my own interpretations of what the evidence says. The debaters should explain and debate the evidence, so that way its not left to my own interpretation.
- Don't insert rehighlightings
- Make jokes about Alison Weber, Spencer Roetlin, or Ephraim Bennett for extra points.
DAs- not too many thoughts here. For the question of "does the link determine the direction of the uniqueness or vice versa," it depends on the debate. For an agenda politics DA, the uniqueness probably determines the direction of the link since its a yes/no question as to whether it will pass now but more guess-work as to how people would react to the plan. In a debate in which the link is more of a yes/no question (is that one program key to deter russia, does the plan cost that much), then the link probably determines the direction of the uniqueness. If you disagree, then explain why in the debate- I'm not too ideological about any of this, rather this is simply by default position as of right now.
Impact turns- I enjoy watching impact turn debates. Go for it- democracy bad, disease good, spark, whatever. If you exectute a dumb impact turn well I will probably give higher speaks.
PICs out of specific portions of the plan are good and are key to test the aff.
Go ahead and read international CPs or whatever other cheating thing you are feeling like doing, I don't care. However, I do dislike certain process CPs (think reg neg). I'll vote on anything, but I won't be vibing with you if you go for an annoying process cp with a net benefit of politics.
Ks- tech is the most important thing to me, which means that you should probably refrain from having huge overviews and then answering all of the line by line by saying "it was answered above”
Links should be specific to the aff. This does not mean that they have to be to the fiated implementation of the 1ac. Links to reps, epistemology, or whatever are fine. However, they need to be explained in the context of the aff. A link about arm sales in the abstract is one thing, but tying it to how the aff has constructed itself will make it better. Having an impact to that link makes it great.
Extinction outweighs is one of the more compelling arguments against the K in my opinion. Thus, please don't switch your aff to being soft left if I am judging you, since I think you are loosing your best offense.
I am still undecided if fairness is an impact or not. I probably won't ever come to a conclusion one way or the other, and thus it is up to the debaters in the round to grapple with that question.
The only thing I’m particularly ideological about are arguments that claim any sort of out of round spillover/impacts on the debaters. That means I will have a very hard time voting for neg teams that go for advocacy skills or some flavor of “we make you better at understanding the law/engaging institutions.” Likewise, I will have a hard time voting for affs that claim they somehow change debate, subject formation arguments, etc.
Theory- I'll vote either way on condo, I will be aff leaning when there are multiple conditional planks to a CP. I'll be neg leaning for other CP theory (consult, conditions, etc).
T- I generally default to competing interpretations. Ground is the most important negative impact.