Feinberg,+Alice

First, a bit about me. I debated for Liberal Arts and Science Academy (under Yao Yao, hi Yao Yao <3 ). I experimented with a lot of different affs through my years, several policy affs as well as several anti-topical affs that included a Fem Rage aff, and a Baudrillardian aff. That being said, the most important part about my philosophy is that any round that I'm in shall be a safe space! **Those who want to discuss sexism, racism, homophobia, ableism, and anything of the like shall be welcomed**. However, take some precautions that I will explain later in the K Affs section.

I arranged these in what I believe to be the most pressing and important information any teams should know about me:


 * __Topicality__**

Topicality is always a safe bet to go for in front of me with the following //caveats://

1) I default to competing interpretations unless shown otherwise, the debate between competing interpretations or reasonability (or whatever other lens you want me to view topicality through) is exactly that. It should be a debate with each point responded to, not have me arbitrarily decide between the two after both teams read their blocks at me and then kind of forget about it later. 2) Impact out your standards! The aff not being fair means nothing to me, how does that affect the debate round? The debate community? Etc. 3) Just because someone is not topical doesn't mean they don't belong in the debate space. You should be proving to me why they should be taken out of the debate space.

__**Theory**__

I always considered myself a theory debater. I'm not afraid to vote on any theory argument as long as it's impacted out.

Also, unlike most judges (I think?) I would love to see a condo debate!


 * __CP's__**

My favorite strategy is a plan specific counterplan with a well impacted DA. I cannot understate that seeing a CP understood and argued well literally makes me excited for the debate to unfold.

__**DA's**__

They exist. Not a whole lot to say except for the fact that you should assume I don't know the whole story of the DA and you should be explaining it to me.


 * __Kritiks__**

I love Kritiks, my partner and I ran them all the time. That being said, my favorite kritiks are often the most obvious and most frequently run kritiks that are well nuanced to the plan. As much as I'd love to see a cap debate I don't want to hear the same old speech about how capitalism is the most evil thing on the planet and we have to reject the aff because capitalism causes billions of invisible deaths and blah blah blah. Tell me how, tell me why? What does the aff do to ensure that capitalism continues to perpetuate itself in the future and what specifically is the aff exploiting?

Framework: Making a clear framework is **crazy important!** Tell me what I am supposed to be representing, am I a policy maker, a decision maker, a grammar analyst? Not only that by why I should be as such, if you win your framework I'll view the entirety of the rest of the debate in such a framework, so make sure it's clear.


 * __Word PICs__**

I. Love. Linguistics. This is probably one of my favorite arguments, and I generally default to the fact that representations and discourse do shape reality. Go for it. I ran 'The' PIC as well, I just love the discussion of language in the debate space.


 * __K Affs__**

As much as I enjoy K affs, I will default to framework unless you do a really good job explaining why you belong in this round. Treat framework and topicality seriously! In addition, make sure it's very very clear what I'm voting for. Does my voting with the aff align me with the movement? Do I vow to support it? Is this a plan that I'm simply deciding if it's a good idea or not? What does my vote mean or do for you aff?

All that being said, happy debating :)