Bond,+Kathy

Hi, I'm Kathy! I debated for Meadows throughout high school, and now do policy and parli debate for Reed :) hdttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v+dQw4wgXcQQ//

I mostly ran policy-style arguments and kritiks, and am most comfortable with util/k debates. Here are my favorite kind of debates in order:
 * TL;DR:**
 * 1) Policy-style
 * 2) Kritikal
 * 3) Theory
 * 4) Framework

Now more specifically-

These are my favorite debates. I think my favorite neg strat was a couple disads, a cp that solves case, and case turns. That being said, I think that two well-developed disads are better than four/five three card disads that have hellaaa missing internal links. I’ll prob reward w speaks if you point out those missing internal links.
 * Policy-style arguments**

I like pics! They’re cool, strategic, and super interesting most of the time. I like word pics a lot- I think discourse shapes reality is true, so if you’re going to go for “discourse doesn’t shape reality” explain it super well.

Politics disads are dumb. But I like them.

Things I like
 * 1) Impact Defense.
 * 2) Impact Turns. Co2 ag, biod bad, and heg good/bad were favs.
 * 3) Word PICs

“I try my best to not be biased in favor of these arguments but that is impossible since I am a dirty liberal who loves to debate oppression. I am not smart enough to claim I know a whole lot about the literature because there is too much for me to read about. That being said please tell me about what K you want to run and I’ll say if it is a go or not okay?” – From Luis Sandoval’s wiki and I agree 100%.
 * Kritiks**

I am aight with theory. Although I think friv theory is funny, I'll feel bad voting on it and will be much more open to just defense in responding to it. Weigh standards! I used to be super into tricks, so if that's your jam, go for it
 * Theory**

Defaults-
 * 1) Competing interps (Does anyone default reasonability?)
 * 2) No RVI
 * 3) Drop the debater
 * 4) Fairness/Education are voters
 * 5) In round > potential abuse

If you run a framework that is non-consequentialist, you are going to have to explain it super well. Assume that I am confused. Especially in the 1ar/2nr please explain why impacts do not matter realllly really clearly. I know it seems obvious to you, but it is definitely not obvious to me why the necessity for intent to be good means that impacts like racism or extinction don’t matter. I am very sympathetic to Ideal Theory Bad K’s. I think they’re true. Your answers to those K’s are going to have to be really clear and well-explained for me to buy them. Honestly, I’m not sure framework debaters would pref me but if you did there here you go- Framework stuff I understand
 * Framework**
 * 1) Constitution first
 * 2) Discourse/Reps First
 * 3) History First
 * 4) Oppression First
 * 5) Most fws that are consequentialist, but not straight up util

Be nice! I like sass, but being rude during cx and yelling at your opponent isn't sass! Nice is not mutually exclusive with being dominant.
 * How to get good speaks**

I am a Ukrainian feminist who loves bad puns. Any combination will result in good speaks. Making puns that relate to the topic, references to Spongebob, Fairly OddParents, Portal, Archer, OITNB, Arrested Development or Psych will up yo speaks too J Here is a general list of things that’ll make me give you points 1. Humor 2. Sass 3. Flashing Evidence Quickly 4. Evidence Comparison/Good Link Explanation 5. Being like a nice person to your opponent- I found that my favorite rounds were those against friends where we were able to just be chill, be nice and have fun 6. Answering abusive arguments well without theory 7. Reading your opponent’s evidence and making specific responses that reference their evidence

Here is a list of things that make me sad and therefore probably give you lower speaks 2. Rudeness- There’s a difference bw being rude and being sassy, and I’ll probably make a face if you cross that line so don’t worry too much about it bc everyone crosses the line at some point. 3. Being pompous 4. Trying to conceal your arguments somehow. You know what a spike is, you know what skep is, we both know you’re wasting your opponent’s CX and that’s not cool.
 * 1) If you say “the Ukraine” instead of just “Ukraine”, you are a) going to listen to a rant about colonialism after the debate and b) probably get lower speaks bc I’ll be mad
 * 2) a. http://time.com/12597/the-ukraine-or-ukraine/

Flashing/Emailing is not prep time, but compiling the speech doc is. Also yes I want to be on the email chain- bondkathybond@gmail.com
 * Misc**

I am kind of a bad flow-er. I’ll also try to flow fw/contention/underview on separate pages so please clearly and loudly say when you’re moving onto different sections of case.

Pet peeves: Why do LDers say "we"?????????????? You're not a shitty Ayn Rand novel, stop it