Snay,+Dana

DANA SNAY I debated for 4 years at Gulliver Prep and am now a Sophomore at Boston College. I debated for BC for one year. I’m a blank slate judge – I’ll vote for anything. That being said, I’ve been more policy oriented for the entirety of my debate career, so truthfully, those are arguments I feel most comfortable with. But don’t let that dissuade you from running critical arguments. I’m a philosophy major so I’m pretty comfortable with most of the literature.  IF YOU DO RUN A K please please please PLEASE explain the alternative well. I will not vote for the K if I don’t understand what the alt is and why it’s better than the plan/squo. Impact calculus is the most important element in winning a K. You either need to prove that the K TURNS the case and you access an external impact, or you SOLVE the case and access an external impact. IMPACT CALC- it’s really important. Please do it. Always. On every flow. Disads- I love a good DA/case debate. If you’re able to go with one DA and case turns, you’ll garner a lot of respect from me. I like these debates best because they are usually the ones with the most clash. CPs- Well researched PICs are my favorite. I strongly dislike consult CPs. I have a relatively high threshold on theory. If you are running multiple (as in more than 2) conditional advocacies, I’m likely to lean towards the affirmative. I’ll only vote on in round abuse. Topicality- I’ll vote on T if the interpretation is well fleshed out and not arbitrary (isn’t run to only exclude the aff). I like grammar and limits standards best, but I’ll listen/vote on others. Framework- I default to the judge’s role being to vote or reject a policy option. If you argue that this shouldn’t be the case and win that argument, I’ll judge the round based on that framework. I dislike when an aff reads ONLY framework arguments against a K, but I know it can sometimes be necessary. Please answer Ks with substantitive args (i.e. alt doesn’t solve, doesn’t solve case, etc.) PLEASE DON’T RUN AN AFF WITHOUT A STABLE PLAN TEXT. You will lose on the framework debate if the other team challenges it. Seriously, I’m not sympathetic to these affirmatives. It’s cheating. Run your K on the neg. This doesn’t mean I’m not a proponent of critical affirmatives. General Note: I’m a college student, so treat me as such. I like jokes and fun debate and don’t take offense easily. I don’t appreciate people getting incredibly worked up when they aren’t getting the answer they’d like in CX (I’ll know if they’re purposely evading your question). Everyone should be respectful to everyone else. If you’re overtly rude to your partner or opponents, I will dock your speaks. Have fun and good luck!