Reyes,+Dani

I debated for West Des Moines Valley for four years: three years of policy debate and LD senior year. I attended and got to elims of the TOC in LD. I currently attend New York University.

Identity Ks: 1 Performance: 1 Political Philosophy Ks (cap/biopower): 1 High Theory: 2 LARP: 2/3 Non-ideal theory based FWs: 1/2 Ideal theory based FWs: 5/strike Frivolous Theory/Tricks: 5/strike


 * Theory**
 * Contrary to popular belief, I will evaluate theory. For example, if your opponent reads 4 off and they're all PICs, I encourage you to read theory to check back against in-round abuse. But I will not vote on an unwarranted "no Ks" spike nor vote on frivolous shit like wifi theory. If your A strat is meta-meta-meta-theory, strike me.
 * I will not pretend to be unbiased on the question of K vs. Fairness: I lean pretty far left. I encourage debaters to engage in the substance of the K rather than solely uplayering with theory. However, this does NOT mean that I categorically reject theory as an argument. Rather, it means that I want your theory shells to be more germane to the K/K aff you're hitting, more creative. I don't want to hear any "-insert K advocacy text here- lacks a solvency advocate" bullshit. How is this specific K/K aff unfair or uneducational? I will not vote on petty "no Ks" recycled theory because:
 * the impact to the shell is non-unique given that Ks have existed for quite a while now and strangely enough, LD debate hasn't died yet
 * this argument is the debate equivalent of "you can't sit with us." It's exclusionary, disrespectful, and rude as fuck
 * I debated this strategy too many fucking times during my senior year and frankly, it gets boring after a while.


 * Kritiks**
 * Do not pander to me. I will not hack for K positions. If you do not know how to run a K/if Ks are not your forte then stick to your best arguments and explain them well. Do not regurgitate a K backfile at me if you do not know what you are saying.
 * I read mostly fem and cap Ks during my career, but I'm fairly familiar with most K lit from critical race theory to queer theory to D&G to Bataille.
 * I encourage debaters to explore different performative mediums: poetry, music, audio clips, etc. However, the alternative performance should serve a purpose that persists throughout the rebuttals. I.e. don't play music for the sake of racking up an extra speaker point


 * LARP**
 * If your CP doesn't have a net benefit, I will cry.
 * If your A strat is to read as many conditional PICs as possible in 7 minutes, I will cry.
 * Otherwise, do you.


 * Framework**
 * For non-ideal theory, I'm fairly familiar with Butler, Young, and Foucault.
 * For ideal theory, I know the basics like the differences among util, deont and virtue ethics. If your framework is jargon-heavy, please explain things in simple terms. Do not assume I fully understand terms like "flourishing" or "noumenal world."


 * Other Important Info**
 * Please disclose to your opponent in a timely manner via FB messenger, email, or in-person so I don't have to evaluate the clusterfuck that is disclosure theory. Aff: at the very least, please disclose if your aff is whole rez, a plan aff, or blatantly non-topical before the round starts.
 * I give higher speaks for humor and creativity.
 * I don't care if you curse, but I will give you 0 speaks if you use racial, misogynist, homophobic, or otherwise derogatory slurs. I make exceptions for acts of reclamation (e.g. reclaiming 'bitch' or 'slut' as a feminist performance in the speech)