Last changed on
Sun April 21, 2024 at 5:14 AM CDT
email- hannahrodriguez2003@gmail.com
pronouns- she/her
Coaching & Competitor History
(2023-Present): Director of Debate & Speech, Prosper High School
(2018-2021): Policy Debate competitor, Princeton
Background:I approach debates with an emphasis on critical analysis, deconstruction of power structures, and engagement with alternative frameworks. My judging philosophy is centered around evaluating debates that delve into issues beyond the policy-oriented or traditional arguments. I appreciate debates that challenge mainstream ideologies, interrogate assumptions, and offer unique perspectives.
Deep Analysis: I value depth over breadth. I prefer in-depth analysis and thorough explanation of critical arguments rather than superficial coverage of multiple arguments.
Open-Mindedness: While I have a preference for critical arguments, I am open to all forms of debate. If traditional or policy-focused arguments are presented effectively, I will evaluate them accordingly.
Speed is fine just slow down a bit in the rebuttals. I say clear twice before I stop flowing. If you are SPREADING through tag lines I AM NOT LISTENING !
Topicality: Ah, I love a good topicality debate, but I do think it tends to get unnecessarily messy. Please extend your interps... I don’t have a preference for competing interps or reasonability though, that’s something that will depend on the debate. Yes, you need impacts but no, I don’t have a preference on whether education or fairness is better. DA’s and turns on the standards debate are particularly convincing but if you go for one of these I don’t want a blippy explanation.
Theory: I think the only convincing theory shell I’ve ever heard while competing was condo, so I hope that tells you that I’m not the judge where you should go all in on theory in the 2ar/2nr. Despite this, I will still listen to theory, but please note I have a very high threshold for abuse. Also, if there has been a serious technical concession, I do think that voting for a theory shell becomes more convincing, but I think this is the only time I’m persuaded.
Disads: I’m good w/ any DA you want to run (even politics), but I generally like the link to be more specific because it’s often more persuasive. Generic links are fine though as long as your doing the internal link devoplement. Also persuasive is DA turns/outweighs case.
Counterplans: I don’t judge kick unless you tell me to, but also make sure you have some explanation of why the squo is, at the very worst, still better than the aff. Any counter-plan is fine. You need a net benefit, but I don’t have a preference for whether it’s external or internal. Any CP or PIC you read is fine, see the theory section for more.
