Debated at Barstow from 2014-2019, but not debating in college

add me to the email chain: kristin.tingle@gmail.com

tldr; Do what you love and I love it. I believe that debate can be fun if you have a good attitude. I prefer quality over quantity, tech over truth (but with exceptions), I probably lean slighly neg on FW v K affs, and abusive condo is a reason to reject the team.

FW v. K Affs:

I don't have much experience with critical affirmatives, as I have only read affs with plan texts. I'm open to critical affs, although I probably lean neg on whether the aff should read a plan text. I have much more familiarity with non-pomo k affs.

Aff - Arguments that the aff outweighs T are compelling, and need a reason why their framework excludes your stuff / why any TVA can't solve.

Neg - Fairness might be an impact, but it's also an internal link. Explain why it matters and what your model of debate looks like. TVAs are a must

Theory:

Condo - I believe that the acceptable number of conditional arguments depends greatly on the round. Two to three conditional, that test both the epistemology and the process of the aff are defensible, more than four condo is iffy. 2As going for this argument have a high threshold for explaining the in round and potential abuse, as well as why it is a reason to reject the team. As a debater, I do not think that condo outweighs T. As a judge, that's up to you to decide how I should evaluate it.

Other theory arguments – similar to above.

DAs and CPs: Love them. Most of my experience in debate was disads, counterplans, with the policy-leaning Ks. Explain the stories in the 2NR, especially if it’s a complicated or unique counterplan.

Ks: I don’t have much experience with running high theory or identity Kritiks. Most of my experience is with neolib, security, or similar kritiks. Explain how the alternative can resolve the impacts and the links to the affirmative. Specific links are good, evidence isn't always required if you have in depth explanation for these.

Style:

- Speed - great. Be clear and make distinctions between cards and tags. If I can't tell what argument you're answering, I will just flow straight down, which may or may not be good for you.

- Tech vs. Truth / Evidence vs. Spin – I like good spin. Last two speeches – if one side is technically ahead / clearly on top of spin, I won’t read cards. However, if both sides are about equal without much evidence comparison or judge instruction, I’ll start reading cards. I don’t think you need cards for every claim – just explain it well and give me some warrants.