Chen,+Heidi

Policy debater at University High School (Irvine): 2013-2016 Current freshman at Stanford University

I'm okay with speed, just make sure to signpost and slow down for tags. It doesn't matter how many arguments you get out, it just matters what makes it on to my flow. I started policy with the typical disads, traditional affs and cps, so I'm decently familiar with this literature base. I love good case debates, competitive CP's, and case-specific DA's. However, in my last two years of high school I started running K Affs and 1-Off K's (biopower, security/colonialism, settlerism, cooption), so I am more well versed in these areas. I will listen to anything the aff says; as far as I'm concerned, there is no resolution until the 1nc reads T/FW. I have a somewhat high threshold for signing off on T or framework, especially when run against k affs, since in my experience the arguments have been more generic and procedural/exclusionary than method/reform based. I am open to a framework round that engages the substance of the aff (ie, having viable TVA's that aren't just "let the US do it!") and deals well with the aff's responses.

That being said, run what you are most comfortable with, and just make sure it is clear and interacts with the other team's framing of the debate; I will listen to anything that is not racist/sexist/heteronormative/ableist, etc. Frame the round so that I don't need to interpret the debate - tell me what I should sign my ballot on.