Evans,+Sarah

**Baylor University ‘17 **(3rd year debating) **Blue Valley North High School ‘13 **(4 years)

I think that debate should be a fun educational experience for everyone involved, and I generally think everyone in debate needs to take themselves less seriously. You should read the arguments you like & are good at. I have a history as a policy debater going for framework, t, disads, and counterplans, but in recent years have shifted focus to critical literature. This means that I probably have some level of familiarity with your argument, but I also have a high threshold for comparison and engagement between different "types of" strategies.

Case: I am highly persuaded by a good case debate on either side, and will reward a targeted application of the case to the neg's offense. I will vote on presumption if I think there is zero risk of the aff. I also think failing to engage the case can be devastating for the neg. Impact turns are cool.

DAs: These debates can be cool. I think politics is boring. I'm persuaded by good turns case and impact comparison analysis, but you need to establish and win a clear uniqueness/link story for that to matter.

CPs: I like these debates too. I'm a 2A so I think a lot of counterplans are cheating and generally prefer them to be functionally competitive, but I also have a pretty high expectation of how robust the aff needs to make these theory debates.

T: These debates can be either really cool or really boring. I think a lot of the phrases debaters recycle in T debates are kind of vacuous, but an impacted analysis NOT ONLY of what the topic/debate should look like under each team's interpretations BUT ALSO why that is important will be rewarded.

"Framework": I like specifically tailored neg strategies, but this can certainly include framework if your analysis of the aff is targeted and specific. I do not have a particular proclivity either way. The more deeply you can engage the aff's impacts, the better your speaks will be.

Kritiks: This is the literature base I am probably the most "up to date" in, but I won't pretend I know all the intricacies of your authors. Buzzwords and block reading = bad; creative analysis which applies your theories to the aff's particular arguments = good.