Soren,+Kayla

Last Updated: 1/3/18

Background info: I debated LD for 4 years at DuPont Manual and graduated in 2016. I coach independents and go to USC.

I keep a thorough flow, and I will do my best to judge solely off of it. Layer the debate and tell me which layers come first. I will listen to any argument, but I will dock speaks or drop you if you’re being blatantly offensive. In and out of round, we should be as empathetic and inclusive as possible.
 * Overall: **

I like some sort of framework to evaluate the round. I don't care what kind. If you’re running complicated or obscure philosophy, don’t assume I have background in it.
 * Framework: **

I am definitely more persuaded by affirmatives that advance an answer to the resolution. Negatives need to have very specific links to the affirmative. Explain the alt and why it solves for its impacts well. If you're against a legitimate k about social issues, you should engage the k. I will not be persuaded if you solely run theory/T on it. Performance k’s are cool.
 * Kritiks: **

Default competing interps, no RVIs, drop argument. If you go for reasonability, tell me how to evaluate what is reasonable. I don't like when theory/T is run just because you don't know how to answer the position. I’m not a fan of frivolous theory and have a low threshold to buy reasonability against it. If there are multiple shells, weigh between them. Ask me before the round about particular shells if you want.
 * T/Theory: **

- Flashing isn't prep - High speaks come from good strategy and if I think you should break. - Impact calc is very important and underutilized - I'm a big fan of a good overview. - If you're going against an opponent in which you are by far the more experienced debater, be helpful and considerate. Win the round kindly! - Permissibility and presumption are not persuasive. - I think debate is a game to an extent, but I do think it is a place for fostering meaningful discourse and change.
 * Other: **

questions/email chain/etc: kaylasoren@gmail.com