Kaplan,+Sara

**Harvard Update: I'm not familiar with the topic so please don't expect me to know the topic lit without full explanation within the round.**

I debated for Meadows in Las Vegas, NV for four years and attended the TOC my senior year; I am currently a freshman at the George Washington University. I’ll listen to whatever you want as long as it is logical and you make smart arguments. Please explain arguments, weigh and be nice. Speed is fine.

Kritiks: I really like K debates. I am the most well versed in feminist literature and ran a lot of oppression-based arguments in high school. I think the best kritiks are the ones that link to the plan and the advantages and emphasize how the alternative and the link specifically interact with the plan as well. I tend to think that the alternative is the weakest part of the k so the less vague the more inclined I would be to vote on it, if your alternative starts with "rethink," "examine," "evaluate" or anything similar its probably susceptible to a permutation. Kritiks don't automatically preclude the aff so the neg needs to give reasons why the K turns the case and you have to weigh between the aff and the K and give reasons why the K comes first. Kritiks are more persuasive if you explain how your method/ starting point (i.e the alternative) is a better way to deal with the aff and solves better than the affs impacts by proving that their impacts don't matter and the affs impacts are constructed in a problematic way. Your role of the ballot also needs to appeal to pedagogy/ education in order to precede other arguments. But, just because you read a K doesn't mean I will understand it or vote for it, so please explain it well.

Performance: I am sympathetic to performance types of arguments however I find them to be extremely ineffective within the debate space and create a hostile environment. I tend to think a lot of issues (specifically gender, race and other forms of oppression) in the context of micropolitical arguments are more effective in educational forums rather than in actual rounds. While I do agree with performance arguments on what they stand for, I would rather see a debate on gender or race in context of the resolution, which in my opinion is more educational to real world impacts. I probably sway more towards framework, but I will vote on performance arguments if you provide good reasons for K>T.

Policy: Counterplans and Disads are fine. Counterplans have to have a solvency advocate and it must be competitive meaning that it is a disad to the aff that the counterplan avoids. Permutations have to have a net benefit. I think that disads are evaluated based on how good the counterplan is, for instance, if the CP solves the entirety of the case then the disad doesn't have to be that great. Also, if you have a long link chain it probably means the disad is not very good.

Theory: I am not a huge fan of theory. I will most likely gut check anything that is deemed as not legitimate theory. However, I will vote on theory if I have to. I default to drop the arg, competing interps, and no RVIs - I tend to think that if you can win substance and theory there is no point to go for an RVI but if your opponent reads multiple shells and you give good justifications for it then I will evaluate it. **Please slow down for interpretations** a lot of the time people blaze through their interp and especially if there are multiple planks it becomes hard to flow. If I do not catch it I will not vote on it.

*If you need help figuring out what is considered good and bad arguments refer to this

Examples of Bad Theory - Must read date theory / author quals - pretty sure flashing solves Affirmative Framework Choice – this is arguing that arguments are bad. Normative Ethics – if anyone reads this please strike me You lose because you didn't specify a racist law – no Must not weigh between Oppression – this is a substantive argument. Must have a Plan Text – This is extremely silly because no one would shift out of their advocacy Disclosure theory - I think that disclosure is good and should be a norm, but its a bad theory shell especially if the aff is new.

Examples of Good Theory - <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">Condo <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">Discourse / Policy Making <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">PICs Good / Bad <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">Plans Good / Bad

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">Topicality: Go for it. Topicality is different than theory in the sense that it challenges the rule of debate through substance. I default to drop the debater.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">Tricks: I don't find these super persuasive or strategic - usually common sense answers these pretty well.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">Framework: I do not understand as much philosophy as others, so if you are going to read dense phil please explain it well.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">Speaker Points: I will start off the round with an average of a 28 and adjust it throughout the round. Here are some things to get good points from me: <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">- Quality of Evidence <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">- Good flows <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">- Being efficient within speeches and prep time i.e. flashing quickly <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">- Evidence Comparison <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">- Coherent strategies against aff cases <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">- Humor (making specific references to Alderete, Game of Thrones, or D4nny would be greatly appreciated) <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">- Clash

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">Here is a list of what not to do: **- Stealing prep time!!!! (this refers to flashing/ prep time)** <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">- Lying <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">- Being rude - there is a difference between sassiness and being rude please do not cross that line <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">- Bad arguments (Frivolous Theory, Death Good, etc.) <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">- Being shady in CX by not answering questions or dodging around the question <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">- Not being able to explain your argument

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">Misc.: <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">- I don’t care if you sit or stand <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">- Flex prep is fine (this means asking questions during prep not taking prep as cx) <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">- If you read any offensive arguments (patriarchy good, genocide good, etc.) I will drop you and give you a 0 <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">- Have fun!!!
 * - Make your speech doc during prep time **
 * - I strongly distrust evidence that is not shared via email or USB. If it's not shared I will not evaluate it. **