Bittner,+Ana

Ana Bittner, Junior at College Prep, 3 years in policy debate Pronouns: she/her Please add me to email chain: abittner@college-prep.org

I'll vote off of the flow and will listen to anything as long as it is not offensive. I consider myself to be a flex debater, and I've been known to read a one off K in one round and read a few disads, counterplans, and case turns in the next. I'm good with speed, but don't let speed compromise clarity. Be respectful of everyone in the room--your opponents, your partner, the judge, anyone watching, and yourself. Debate is a social game and it also requires you to be persuasive, which does not mean being rude or overtly aggressive.


 * DA**: As long as you contextualize the links to the aff and explain the story of the disad clearly, you're set. Impact calculus is really important! Saying "disad turns case," "disad o/w," etc. is insufficient to win my ballot--give warranted explanations for all of your claims.


 * CP**: I love a good cheaty counterplan. (I have a soft spot in my heart for concon) Make sure to clearly identify your net benefit and explain how you solve the aff.


 * K**: I have had experience reading wilderson, neolib, critical race theory, settler colonialism (Strakosch and Macoun), cripistemologies (Mitchell, Snyder, and Ware), feminist materialism, radical hope (Hall), and feminist killjoy (Ahmed). I'm not well versed in postmodernism, so if that's your K of choice, clearly explain your alt and links to me. You're trying to persuade me--that means not reading blocks off of your computer or assuming I understand your alt, which means you should probably spend some time explaining what it is and how it solves your links and whatever part of the aff you want to claim it can resolve. Links should be impacted out, contextualized to the aff, and be pointing to specific examples in the 1ac/2ac/1ar. Saying the "links are disads to the perm" is insufficient. You need to spend time on framework and explain to me why I should prefer your model of debate. The more extreme your alt--the more you have to explain how it solves. The closer your alt is to the aff--the more you have to explain why the perm doesn't solve.


 * T**: I'll vote on it. It's not my favorite debate, but if it's your jam who am I to tell you not to go for it? Just make sure to explain your impacts--"education and fairness" are internal links, not impacts.


 * K Affs**: I read the Third Space aff in my sophomore year. If you're neg and go for framework--you have to impact out why your form of debate is better than the aff's. I'm not usually persuaded by buzz words like "truth testing/advocacy skills/fairness/education." Explain to me what those mean--what does fairness look like? The same goes for the aff answering framework. I won't be persuaded by a million and one disads. Be solid on the ones you read and go for. Be specific and please please please do not just read blocks.


 * Theory**: I'll vote on it, but I won't be happy with this debate. Have a clear violation, explain why it's better, and impact it out.


 * Anything else I think is kinda relevant**: I will vote on language ks and I will drop you points for using offensive language. I oftentimes find a sincere apology to be the best and only answer, so please don't read a million cards that turn their K or say rhetoric doesn't matter, etc. This will only make me hate you and prove that your apology was not genuine. Other than that, I don't make a big deal about speaks--just have fun and be respectful. I'll give you a speaker point bump for every joke you make about me/college prep debaters/my friends as long as it's funny.