Foster,+Amy

Affiliations: Baylor University (judge/law student); University of Missouri--Kansas City (UMKC) undergrad

I graduated from UMKC where I was a debater for the past 4 years (I also judged at various KS & MO high school tournaments & summer institutes for the past 4 years while there). I mainly debated K's but there was a time when I was mostly about policy stuff. Right now there isn’t much you can’t do in front of me as long as there are claims, warrants, impacts, and big picture analysis. However, being sexist or racist is something that makes me very inclined to vote against you. Being unclear/trying to go faster than you can is likely to mess up my flow and decrease your speaker points. If you have a question about something not included here feel free to ask me before the round.


 * Topicality**: I believe that T should be a discussion about the best/fairest way to interpret the resolution. I would prefer that you engage the affirmative rather than complain about it but I understand if you go for T when Affs are blatantly not topical. As a side note, I believe framework isn’t so much a voting issue as a way to evaluate the round.


 * Theory:** Do what you have to do but keep in mind that a claim is only a claim unless it is followed by a warrant. Please don’t just read frontlines back at each other. If you know a theory debate will be big please put it on another page--don’t mess up my flow because it will most likely only hurt you.


 * Criticisms**: I am very inclined to like them. That being said...run them if you want to but if you’re not comfortable debating a specific K then please don’t do it just because you think I might like it. I’m not so interested in what nihilists or Zizek have to say but if that’s your thing then go with it. Isolating case specific links will help you when you’re negative. Explaining the perm versus the alternative will go a long way whether you’re Aff or Neg.


 * Counterplans/Disads**: I like a good/specific cp strategy with specific link evidence. These debates are generally won and lost on the impact level and solvency comparisons so please do the big picture work at the end of the round. Affs-feel free to straight turn arguments, kritik the Das/Cps, etc. If a card doesn’t have more than 10 words highlighted then I’m very inclined to think it lacks any value in the round and what little time you wasted reading it might be better spent doing something else.