Gomez,+Helen

Affiliations: Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart (’10) Northwestern University (’14) I am fine with any style of debate. I am able to flow all speeds and use my flow to determine the outcome of the debate (instead of the “Truth” in question). Everything is debatable. That said, you should be comfortable with your arguments and debate your best, regardless of my personal inclinations. Although I ran strictly policy-oriented arguments (CP/DA/ Case), I can be persuaded by a Kritik Preferences: T is about competing interpretations. Best Policy Option is best Conditionality is probably good (in moderation) Aff needs to defend their plan Consult/ Condition/ Process CPs are competitively deficient Offense/ Defense Framework Theory args are a reason to reject the argument unless explained otherwise I like: Explanation of arguments Impact calculus Clarity/ organization on the flow You should have fun, be respectful, debate well. Cheaters will lose. Automatically.