Grusin,+Sarah

I debated for 4 years in high school and was nationally competitive – I cleared at the TOC. I have been coaching at the University of Chicago Lab School for 2 years.

I will listen to anything so long as it is explained well. That being said, here are some specifics

Topicality: I love topicality debates when they are warranted and impacted. Please don't just go for T because I like it. If you go for T in front of me I expect to see a lot of clash and comparison of your standards. I start off the round viewing T through a framework of competing interpretations, but if you win that I should evaluate reasonability or another framework first I will.

Theory: I don't mind theory. If you decide to go for it, please, please clash. I don't want to hear theory blocks read back and forth.

Kritiks: I will vote on the K. My biggest problem with them is the lack of contextual explanation. I want the neg to explain why the aff links – please don’t just read a bunch of link cards at me. I also think the neg should have some kind of alternative that they should stick to, if not I am very open to aff theory. It is especially important to explain how the alternative solves the impacts.

Counterplans: I really like counterplans, especially case specific ones. I think PICs are fine, but I really dislike consult counterplans and process counterplans, and will be very persuaded by theory against them. Other than that, I don't really like dispo/conditionality debates, but I will vote on them.

Disads: These are fine