Dorau,+Cora


 * About Me:** I debated for three years for Omaha Westside under the coaching of Dana Christensen (graduated in 2014). I primarily ran kritiks on both the aff and neg, but, that doesn't mean I do not like policy plans. I am willing to listen to any argument whether it has a plan text or not.


 * Speed:** I am fine with. Be clear and loud.
 * Tag Team CX:** I am fine with but don't dominate.
 * P****rep Time:** Don't take time for flashing, but don't abuse it.

__//**Specific Arguments:**//__


 * **Identity Affs-** My experience with critical affs was mostly with identity/privilege arguments. I'm heavily supportive of their existence in debate and usually think that the aff, at least in the abstract, is defending a good idea. However, I think that there's often a lack of articulation and proper substantive debating done by a lot of critical teams; I need to know what you're doing and why you're doing it. I lean aff against framework in these debates, but the win is obviously not free.
 * **High Theory Affs** - Baby me. To be brutally honest, I need heavy explanation or I won't know what you're doing. I'm probably pretty neutral on these debates because I don't have a commitment to these sorts of arguments. I think this may be because I appreciate identity arguments because of the ways they connect to people, in contrast to what I perceive as pure gamesmanship by high theory teams.
 * **Policy/Traditional** - I'm a little rusty because I didn't debate traditional policy after my first year. That being said, explain how the arguments interact with each other and do the work for me. This means read way less cards and focus on explanation, framing, comparative analysis, and making sure my flow tells me everything I need to know about the debate. You probably won't be happy if I'm making my own decisions with my own knowledge base when it comes to these debates.
 * It's really the same with disads, CPs, case turns and whatever else. I probably lean aff on PICs unless there's heavy functional competition/obvious competition between the two advocacies. Textual competition, defining a term of art in the plan text to generate competition, and other stuff like that is not great in front of me on the perm level.
 * **Topicality** - I am not familiar with the topic and different community norms about what is or is not topical and where the core of the topic is. This does, in some ways, give you a lot of creative license to make wild assertions about how the topic is being formed because I can't fact check it. That being said, I'll approach topicality by figuring out who has the better tech instead of truth. Comparative standards analysis, case lists, lists of loss ground, impacting out different standards and explaining why one matters more than whatever offense your opponent is going for and so on are all important. In a toss-up because of lack of substance from both sides, I would probably default aff because I think it's the negatives' burden to prove some sort of offense on the flow.
 * **Aff Framework**- I am not a good judge for exclusive frameworks that say kritiks are cheating, period. When it comes to questions of affirmative access to fiat, I lean negative in spirit because I don't think fiat is the most productive way for us to frame our debates, but I think it's always directed by the round/flow. I think an inclusive "we get to weigh our aff" interpretation is persuasive in some ways, but affirmative offense should be almost exclusively focused on education instead of shoddy claims of fairness. A defense of fiat/roleplaying, state-based reformism, top-down or market based solutions and other substantive defenses of the affirmative method is what I'm most receptive to. I don't think a counter Role of the ballot is fundamental to winning because the substance on the flow dictates whether I think the negative's RoB is good or not. However, I think the substance has to be directly framed to answer the negative's RoB or I'll consider it dropped. That being said, I don't think it hurts to have an affirmative counter RoB because comparative RoB analysis can act as a locus for clash.

I'm probably more truth over tech. The longer the internal link chain and more illogical or straight up untrue an argument is, the more skeptical I'll be of it and the more receptive I'll be of affirmative pressure on the low probability parts of the arguments. Probability is the most important part of impact calc for me in debates, but turns case/disad arguments can shift my focus away from probability.

if your argument is incredibly stupid or immoral, I don't think the flow will save you.

I don't like performative contradictions when it comes to Framework. if you're running Framework with a Marx K that doesn't meet your framework, I think you're double-turning yourself and that you'll have trouble accessing your Marx alt. I consider this different than running an oil or economy disad with a Cap K because the disad isn't making a major big-picture framing issue of what debate should look like that excludes the K.