Manzini,+Sabina

Currently an LD debater at the Meadows School in Las Vegas. I’m fine with speed but will definitely appreciate it if you slow down for tags and author names, and any spikes you intend to blow up later in the round – if I didn’t get it in the first speech, I’ll be hard pressed to grant you the argument. I’ll use whatever framework y’all decide upon in the round but if it’s incredibly messy I’ll default to util. I’m sympathetic to the time-crunched 1ar when it comes to extensions but simply saying “Extend contention 1” is not sufficient.

Argument-wise, there's not too much I'm opposed to. Theory is fine, and I’m pretty open to RVIs. I like Ks but that doesn’t mean if you read one in front of me you’ll automatically win – you need to be explaining it well and not just relying on confusing your opponent with unnecessarily complex jargon. That will likely just result in confusing me as well, leaving open the potential for a ballot you may not want. Further, only clearing things up in the last speech after relying on complex rhetoric will probably result in a loss of speaker points. I’m definitely not a fan of truth testing arguments and straight up will not vote on anything I find morally offensive. If you have to ask if I consider something morally offensive it probably is. Adding puns to your speech could result in higher speaks.