Singh,Manasi

Policy debate(2013-2016) and LD debate(2016-17) at WDM Valley High School. Favorite topic: Oceans (2014-15 Policy Topic) Favorite position: Fem Rage I went for the K in 96% of rounds I’m most familiar with Cap, Fem, Deleuze, and Nietzsche but all Ks are great. hmu if you have questions or just want to chat: manasi.singh@drake.edu or add me on facebook.
 * Me**

I love debate, so please don’t make me hate it. I’m interested in what you’re best at, not watching you fumble around with a K you stole from a teammate’s dropbox 20 minutes before the round because you read that I love Ks. Do what you want, make the round your own.
 * TL;DR**

__**LD Paradigm**__

I don’t care what happens during this speech. If you want to play music or strip or sit in silence or read 12 policy advantages, you do you. Just be able to a) justify your speech act and b) have a mechanism to resolve the harms of the 1AC throughout the entire debate. If you aren’t able to do those two things, then I’ll be forced to vote neg on presumption.
 * AFFs:**

Despite what many people think, I will vote on theory. If there is obvious abuse in the round, reading theory is a great way to check back on that abuse. Couple things to keep in mind:
 * Theory:**
 * 1) If your plan is to read meta-meta theory because you have no other prep, strike me.
 * 2) I have an extremely high threshold for voting on frivolous theory arguments (i.e. disclosure theory, wifi theory, etc).
 * 3) Potential abuse is not a voter.

Do it, I’ll listen to anything, and I encourage you to try new advocacies and positions in front of me. I love Ks so don’t make me hate them. I don’t think links prove why the perm doesn’t solve, at best they prove there’s a chance that something bad might happen. Negs need to go a step further and explain why the risk of the aff doing something bad is high enough to reject the perm.
 * Kritiks:**

If your CP doesn't have a net benefit, I will cry,
 * LARP:**

I’m familiar with many framework positions, but if your position is very jargon heavy please slow down a bit and explain it in simpler terms. If you have specific questions, ask me in round.
 * Framework:**

__**Policy Paradigm**__


 * AFFs:** Read above.


 * Framework/T:** I never really read framework as a debater but I think there is a lot of value for debaters to question what should be allowed within the confines of the debate space. However, there are usually two types of framework debaters and one is definitely better than the other. The first type of framework debater raises questions of pragmatism and questions the debate space as a whole. The second type of framework debater is the kid that opened the speech doc, saw some big words, and decided to read framework as a means to win the round without doing anything. I’ll evaluate framework regardless of which debater you are, but here are some things to keep in mind:
 * 1) I probably value education impacts the most, if you can give me a clear explanation as to how the 1AC is specifically hindering your ability to have an educationally empowering round, then by all means do it.
 * 2) I have a high threshold for voting on fairness, and potential abuse is not a voter. If you want to win on fairness, I need specific examples of abuse from either the speech act or the 1AC itself.
 * 3) I actually love a strategic framework debate, but too often teams end up representing their framework arguments as mechanisms of domination (i.e. I’m allowed in this space and you are not because of the arguments that you run). These debates can get quite hostile so, and this applies to everyone, be mindful of your language and how you treat one another.


 * Theory:** Basically everything I said for framework/T. Theory is great for checking abuse, and I expect to see it when a team is being abusive. Just slow down about 7% so I can flow your standards.


 * Counterplans/DAs:** I love strategic, aff specific CP/DA combos. PICs are cool.


 * Kritiks:** Read above.