Sarah Emerson Paradigm

Last changed 2/27 12:44P CDT

Sarah Emerson (seemerson19@gmail.com- yes I want to be on the email chain)

I am a second-year debater at Samford University. However, I debated Policy for three years in high school. The five topics I've debated are Domestic Surveillance, Relations with China, Primary and Secondary Education, Executive Authority, and International Space cooperation. Additionally, I have done some work on the Arms Sales topic, but not a ton. Please don’t assume that I know what your niche policy is because I probably don’t.

TLDR: Traditional college policy debater, lean negative on theory, affirmatives must affirm the topic with a policy option, very tech > truth, pls do impact calc

LD Specific Stuff is at the bottom

My thoughts on various things:

Non-topical affs: Pairings are binding, the team assigned affirmative must affirm the topic with a policy option under the resolution. Debate is a game and there are rules to the game

Signpost, do line-by-line, and use smart analytics. Those things make you look more intelligent and on top of things. (Read as more speaker points)

Traditional v. Critical: Very Traditional. I have run and hit a few K's, but I probably won't understand what your K is saying if it's not one of the common ones. (Settler Colonialism, Anti-Blackness, Feminism, Cap, Security, etc.) As of January 2020, there is not a single K on my wiki. Do with that what you will. More on K’s below

Tech v. Truth: I lean really far toward tech. If you want to run the weirdest argument out there, go for it. If they drop it and you point it out, it's going to be a true argument for me. The downside is that if your opponent points out that your argument is weird and I think it is, I'll give them a little more wiggle room answering it. This is true for all args except args that have no business in debate (see impact turns below)

Speed: Go as fast as you want. If you're unclear, I'll say clear. If you become unclear again I'll say it one more time then I will just look at you with a confused face.

Kicking Arguments: Unless it’s a theory arg, you should be formally kicking out of things. I will kick a cp for the negative automatically if they respond to “status of the cp” in cx with “status quo is always an option” unless the aff tells me not to. Otherwise, I won’t kick anything unless explicitly told to by the negative.

My thoughts are various types of arguments:

T: I really don't like when someone runs a T-shell that clearly doesn't counter the aff. Make sure that there is at least an argument that they don't meet your interpretation and that your interp isn't absurd. I have a high threshold for voting negative on T, but it has happened before. If you are going to go for T in front of me, here are a couple of things you need:

- An interpretation of a word or phrase in the resolution - Yes, it must be the exact word or phrase in the resolution. Don't define reduce if the resolution says restrict for example.

- A clear reason or a card that states that the aff plan does not fall under that interp. If you are going to make T the 2NR, this should take more than just restating what previous speeches said.

- Standards (especially if there is a counter interp) - If you don't tell me why to prefer your interp, I probably will give aff more wiggle room on being T. Standards should develop throughout the round to have an impact. Why should I care about limiting the resolution?

-Preferably a Topical Version of the AFF that is introduced in the block or a case list at least. The TVA should somewhat access the internal discussion of the aff

Theory More Broadly: Your shell needs to be clear (a little slower that your regular spreading) or I won't be able to catch it all. Like T, you need an interp and standards in order for me to vote your way. Condo is reject the team or reject the arg, and everything else is just reject the arg. Debate is a game and theory arguments tell the judge when someone has broken a rule. I lean pretty far negative on theory like PICs, Conditional, etc.

Condo: I don't have a particular limit of conditional options that is a hard threshold for voting aff. Just remember, the more condo you have, the more persuasive the reject the team arg becomes and the more wiggle room I will give the aff when answering other sheets. I think conditional planks is sketchy at best. Dispo is fine too.

K: Your K must have some form of solvency mechanism. What that looks like is up to you. I don't find the argument that winning the alt solvency or framework means no perm particularly persuasive. Please please please don't just read card after card and not do any line-by-line clash or extrapolation. You cannot win a K without an alternative

CP: I love a good counterplan as most traditional policy debaters do. This means a counterplan text that is textually and functionally competitive with the plan, a credible solvency advocate, and a net benefit. The rest is up to the debaters. I’m good with any kind of cp as long as the negative is ready to defend it theoretically or kick out of it.

DA: Not much to say here. They’re cool, almost everyone runs them because they’re cool. Uniqueness determines the direction of the link.

Impacts: Do impact calculus and turns/solves case arguments at least in the 2NR/2AR, please. If the debate comes down to impact calculus and neither team has done any, I can’t tell you how I personally would evaluate the impacts. I would probably read some cards, figure out whose impact was more disputed, get really frustrated, and not want to give anyone good speaks… so just do the calculus.

Impact Turns: I'm down for impact turns such as Democracy, Proliferation, Economy, etc. Those debates can get messy, however. Do your best to keep your argument clean to help me evaluate the round, and you’ll get a speaker point boost. If you impact turn anything like discrimination, racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. you’re going to lose and get 0 speaker points.

LD Specific

- Affirmatives don't need to read a plan text if they don't want to, but they must defend the resolution

- Util is true-til but I'm willing to listen to other frameworks - just be aware of the bias and know that you'll need to do a little more work to win your impacts outweigh

- Although I am a policy debater, I'm not the biggest fan of K's, especially in LD. I don't think there is really enough time to develop such a complex argument and it would take a lot of explaining to really make me feel comfortable voting

- CPs are fair negative ground, plan texts are fair affirmative ground - although you're welcome to argue that they aren't

Full Judging Record

Tournament Date Ev Rd Aff Neg Vote Result
Alabama State Tournament 3/5/2020 VLD Final Vestavia Hills RC Auburn MF Neg Neg on a 3-0
Alabama State Tournament 3/5/2020 JVLD F Montgomery TD Vestavia Hills RB Aff Aff on a 3-0
Alabama State Tournament 3/5/2020 VLD R5 Mountain Brook MC Montgomery CD Aff
Alabama State Tournament 3/5/2020 VLD R4 Vestavia Hills EL Auburn AS Neg
Alabama State Tournament 3/5/2020 NLD R2 Auburn SP Montgomery WR Aff
Alabama State Tournament 3/5/2020 NLD R1 Auburn MB Vestavia Hills CD Neg
Deep South District Tournament 2/28/2020 LD R6 102 124 Aff Neg on a 2-1
Deep South District Tournament 2/28/2020 BQ R5 173 212 Neg Neg on a 2-1
Deep South District Tournament 2/28/2020 LD R3 125 148 Aff
Deep South District Tournament 2/28/2020 LD R2 234 134 Neg
Deep South District Tournament 2/28/2020 LD R1 178 136 Neg
The Betty Gunn Invitational at Mountain Brook High School 1/31/2020 VPF F Vestavia Hills SZ Mountain Brook DH Neg Neg on a 3-0
The Betty Gunn Invitational at Mountain Brook High School 1/31/2020 LDRR RR F Vestavia Hills Conn Mountain Brook Cornes Neg Neg on a 4-1
The Betty Gunn Invitational at Mountain Brook High School 1/31/2020 VLD Q Montgomery CJ Hoover SS Neg Neg on a 3-0
The Betty Gunn Invitational at Mountain Brook High School 1/31/2020 PFRR RR5 Mountain Brook Doyle & Battle Vestavia Hills Stacey & Zhou Aff
The Betty Gunn Invitational at Mountain Brook High School 1/31/2020 NLD R5 Hoover LS Vestavia Hills DZ Neg
The Betty Gunn Invitational at Mountain Brook High School 1/31/2020 LDRR RR4 Mountain Brook Cornes Montgomery Dumas Aff Aff on a 2-0
The Betty Gunn Invitational at Mountain Brook High School 1/31/2020 LDRR RR3 SpeakFirst Oden Auburn Fain Neg Neg on a 2-0
The Betty Gunn Invitational at Mountain Brook High School 1/31/2020 VLD R3 Vestavia Hills MV Mountain Brook WF Neg
The Betty Gunn Invitational at Mountain Brook High School 1/31/2020 NLD R2 SpeakFirst DF Randolph MC Aff
The Betty Gunn Invitational at Mountain Brook High School 1/31/2020 NLD R2 James Clemens SD Hoover KG Neg
The Betty Gunn Invitational at Mountain Brook High School 1/31/2020 NLD R1 Vestavia Hills GJ Indian Springs HS Aff
The Betty Gunn Invitational at Mountain Brook High School 1/31/2020 NLD R1 Hoover SN Oak Mountain JC Aff
Deep South District Tournament 2/3/2019 PF R5 128 103 Neg Neg on a 2-1
Deep South District Tournament 2/3/2019 PF R4 148 211 Neg Aff on a 2-1
Samford University Bishop Guild Debate Tournament 1/12/2019 PF R6 Mountain Brook HB Auburn PW Aff
Samford University Bishop Guild Debate Tournament 1/12/2019 PF R5 Auburn CM Mountain Brook SS Neg
Isidore Newman School Invitational 12/7/2018 VarPF Semis Bellaire BR Dulles CL Aff Neg on a 2-1
Isidore Newman School Invitational 12/7/2018 VarCX Semis Pace HN Greenhill RK Neg Neg on a 2-1
Isidore Newman School Invitational 12/7/2018 VarCX R6 Bentonville MT Lindale JS Neg
Isidore Newman School Invitational 12/7/2018 NovCX R5 Caddo Magnet VW Baton Rouge Magnet PR Neg
Isidore Newman School Invitational 12/7/2018 VarCX R3 Fullerton Union GK Henry W Grady TK Aff
Isidore Newman School Invitational 12/7/2018 NovCX R2 Parkview Arts and Science Magnet BS Baton Rouge Magnet CP Aff
Samford Debate Institute 7/5/2018 R5 GGH GJ GGH PH Aff