Haas,+Tiffany

Wayzata (MN) '15 Emory University '19 tiffany.s.haas@gmail.com __**Topicality**__ - Against no-plan affs: I generally think that defending the hypothetical implementation of a policy action is good. Fairness is definitely the truest arg, and T version is devestating. That being said, I can also be easily persuaded to vote against framework, as I have been on both sides of the debate and can respect different types of arguments. Framework against a "high theory aff" is particularly persuasive, whereas framework against an identity aff is not. Against plan affs: I'm a 2A, so I'm probably aff leaning. Doesn't mean T isn't unwinnable, just make sure you GO FOR IMPACTS. __**Kritiks -**__ I view the K more as a DA - explain the impact and how it interacts/turns the aff. Do that and you're good. Rephrased: DONT IGNORE THE AFF. I find the perm persuasive if the K doesn't actually provide an opportunity cost to the aff. Reading a bunch of links on the perm debate can make sense if they're well-applied and explained, but I'd rather you explain why the perm itself is nonsensical (why the K and the aff are mutually exclusive). High theory K's are less likely to make sense to me, as I'm not familiar with the lit - don't say "not our baudrillard" because it's probably your baudrillard. __**Case -**__ so fun!!!! speaker points will reflect the level of nuance and whatnot on the case debate __**Politics/DA's -**__ i love politics, but don't go for them if you don't feel comfy just because im sitting in the back - seriously go for what makes you happy (politics just happens to make me happy) __**CPs -**__ competitive, well-thought out cp's are appreciated. abusive, process cp's i lean aff on theory (im a 2a), BUT having a solvency advocate contextualized to the aff will make it harder to win the CP is abusive. __**Theory -**__ LOVE NUANCED THEORY DEBATES things like no neg fiat are pretty asinine and im not sure that i'd vote on it unless it was blatenly dropped. not sure what my fave interp on conditionality is, but proving abuse between multiple conditional advocacies (ie reading a link to a K from an add-on read on the CP) makes conditionality bad super persuasive. 2 conditional is my max.

Jokes are well appreciated (topic puns, or jokes about Kate Gehling; if you're making a joke about anything else, it's probably a bad joke) - add a cat gif to the email chain and <3 <3 <3.