Amestoy,+Monica

My name is Monica Amestoy. I graduated in 2013 and debated for Flintridge Sacred Heart Academy in La Canada, CA. I qualified for TOC my senior year and have taught at VBI, NSD, PDI and BFI.
 * Background:**


 * Overview**: I will do my best to evaluate the round the way you tell me to. I will try to be as objective as possible, but I think that it is impossible to be a completely "tab" judge. So instead of pretending that I will vote like a blank slate my paradigm is to let you know about some of my opinions on certain aspects of debate.

I personally think theory should be a matter of competing interpretations, but if you __//really//__ think you can win reasonability and actually tell me what that means then go ahead. My theory default is drop the debater but that can change.
 * Theory: ** I like __**good**__ theory debates.

**Ks**: I hesitate to tell you about my love for the K debate because I’m scared people will think that means they have to run their K in front of me. I obviously love the K but you should run what you think you will do your best with. That being said, I have found that I am more compelled by critical arguments so if you are responding to one of these types of positions or feel that you would perform better under a different paradigm of debate then I think you should probably address questions of what fairness is and for whom/what it means in the debate space.

**CPs, Perms, Plans and DAs**: Go for it Is condo good? Bad? Idk you should tell me these things in your speech

=__**People need to slow down for their plan/cp texts.**__= -Slow down for card names. I think judges lie way too much about how good they are at flowing. I'm just okay.

1. Formatting your case in a way that makes it difficult for your opponent to read: multiple colors, fonts, highlighting or lack of spacing. (honestly win the round because your arguments or ballot story is better not because your opponent has a hard time reading your case) 2. Being really rude 3. Stealing prep 4. Lying
 * Things I will drop your speaks for (a lot): **

To end, I will quote Oliver Gappmayer to express how I feel about “tricks.”


 * "Tricks": ** My general perception of arguments that are labeled as "tricks" is that they should be relabeled as "bad arguments that can win rounds through convolution and deception." You aren't being tricky, [|this guy] is being tricky, you are being uneducational. If your argument is good enough to run, it is good enough to run well. Don't expect me to vote for positions that are missing necessary components.

Feel free to ask me any questions before the round!