Granillo-Walker,+Erin

ASU Barrett '21 3 years competing in policy, 1 year in LD 1st year coaching

General stuff for LD & CX: I'm generally okay with almost anything. Theory, plans, CPs, Ks, etc. - are all alright by me. I'm fine with speed but if I can't understand you I will say clear. Flex prep & tag team CX is fine. I try not be too interventionist. That being said, if you just spread a pre-fiat k with no analysis and clash of your own, I probably won't buy it. Tell me in the last bit of your final speeches why you won. You should also plan on flashing me a copy of the speech doc, and prep time ends when the flashdrive leaves the computer.

FWs: I am fine with just about anything here. I appreciate it when debaters make this part of the debate really clear and provide clash here. If you really want my opinion, morality is not a great value to use but other than that run whatever you want to run.

Theory: I would say I have about a medium threshold for theory. I default to competing interps. If you include theory spikes in your AC, make sure that it's clear. If I don't have it on my flow and you try to extend it in the 1AR, I won't buy it. I know theory pretty well so don't feel the need to oversimplify jargon here.

Plans/CPs: I am fine with both. Make sure that your CP is actually mutually exclusive to the aff.

DAs (general): Please provide impact analysis and comparison as to why the impact of the DA o/ws the impact(s) of the affirmative. Even if I buy the DA, you still have to win that the impact of the DA is what I vote on.

DAs (politics): I love these. Recent UQ is important. PLEASE fully explain the internal link chain.

Ks: (For LD) Be sure to provide a FW or ROB/J. If you don't, I'll just assume your opponents FW.

//__**Ethics**__//: Ensuring people debate ethically is really important to me. I watch very carefully for card clipping, and (mainly at Nat Circuit tournaments) I highly encourage y'all to audio record rounds (but be sure to offer your opponent a copy afterward). I also will randomly check a piece of evidence from each of your cases to ensure its authenticity so you better make sure all of your evidence is legitimate/accurate. Card clipping is at best an autoloss with 0 speaks, at worst DQ from the tournament.

For PF: If neither team provides a FW, I'll assume cost-benefit analysis. Please provide actually clash and impact comparison.

For extemp: Nice job for checking this before the round. I'll always rank based off of substance and analysis over style. Having a coherent thesis is important. Substructure is more important to me than fluency.

I'll disclose in all debate rounds except novice prelims.

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)