Hellebuick,+Yumasie


 * Yumasie Hellebuick ( phonetically: You-may-see Hella-bick)**
 * Currently a policy debater at the University of Wyoming **
 * Competed in Policy three years in high school for Bingham High School, UT **
 * Email chain/contact: yumasie.hellebuick@gmail.com **

- //Defend something. (KEY: You define what 'something' means.)// - Puedo hablar y understand español, francais, and English. That being said, I like debaters who were raised in multi-lingual households to slip up their native tongue here and there. //**You are in no way obligated to speak another language if you are not comfortable with it. This is just para los personas who naturally do so already**//. - **Tag teaming is fine pero** speaking over your partner who's trying to answer the question isn't. - Flashing/sending documents is not prep unless you are overwhelmingly taking a ton of time (30 sec <)
 * __ Overview: __**
 * - Don't ask your opponents what's their gender pronouns if you don't know their name. //Especially don't ask them in front of a bunch of strangers.//** The amount of anxiety that occurs from forcing someone to out themselves doesn't fly with me and will make me skeptical of your politics. Get to know them or at least have the decency to ask them in private. Ex: "Hey, my names (insert) and I go by (insert,) would you be comfortable sharing with me your name and pronouns?"

I //do not presume the aff, neg, or what debate should be. That's your job to tell me.// **I believe the judge is only meant to facilitate the debate ya'll want to have in the round.** Debate is anything you want it to be, you just have to defend and give reasons why I should think debate should be understood that way instead of the other teams interpretation.
 * __Procedurals:__**

Prove in-round abuse and why I should prefer your interpretation of the topic. Topicality is not genocide. These arguments are not persuasive and quite frankly offensive.
 * __Topicality:__ **

These debates discourage clash more than any other debates I see. This doesn't mean I won't vote for it, but you must identify los impacts. For "non-topical" Affs: T he more nebulous your cross-ex responses are, the more likely I am to vote neg on framework.
 * __Framework:__**

Best when the link and impact are //both// things the negative did, not what they necessarily justify.
 * __Theory:__**

I had the reputation in high school as being the kid who ran Ks, therefore I am relatively well-versed in many critical literatures. **Your jargon might confuse your opponents, but they're not going to win you my ballot that way.** Reconsider how you debate these in front of me if you're known for just saying things in circles. Impact claims should be more than "root cause of violence" and there should be some explanation of the impact in terms of the aff. I don't think you need an alternative, but if you are going for one please explain it.
 * __ Kritiks: __**
 * __K-Affs:__** I love these. I love the creativity that was formed through the interpretation of the resolution. You should have a good response to topicality that is not "T kills people" and "you'll just read politics". Neither argument is persuasive. Explain to me what voting aff means. What does voting aff mean for you, the debate community, or society writ large?

__ **Counterplans:** __ CPs specific to the aff get you ahead more than 50 States or Consultation CPs. The more generic they are, the more you have to tell me how you garner the net benefit and resolve the advantages the aff doesn't solve or why they don't matter in the end.

__**Disadvantages:**__ Having DA/case or CP/DA strats are always refreshing to watch. Ironically Elections and Politics DAs are debates I love watching getting fleshed out if you actually know what you're talking about.

**__Final Thoughts__:** Judge direction gets you better speaks. I will vote on dropped voters. Weigh impacts. The more you make me feel like I'm parte del debate will get you higher speaks.