Kovar,+Makayla

North Mesquite High School '17 University of Houston '21

Fresh off the circuit so do with that what you will. Debated for three years for North Mesquite in LD - 2 in policy, Qualled for LD for TFA state, UIL Regionals, and NCFL.

//__**Speed**__//: Im fine with it as long as you're clear and you slow down on the tags. However I will say "clear" if I need to and I do a pretty good job of letting you know if I'm following with my facial expressions.. If it gets to the point where I cant understand you after Ive said clear a few times I'll just stop flowing. __//**I WILL REWARD YOU WITH GOOD SPEAKS IF YOU HAVE CREATIVE POSITIONS!! **//__

__//**Speaks**//__: typically its on a range of 26-30 with an average of about 28.5. Im more likely to give you pretty good speaks if you signpost well and don't drop anything/ group strategically. I'm more likely to give you lower speaks if you repeatedly cut off your opponent in cx. Fair warning: I will give you REALLY low speaks if you say anything that is racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist.. basically anything that makes the debate space unsafe. I do ask that you give trigger warnings if you plan on reading any material/narratives that is particularly controversial/sensitive. (Don't get me wrong- I love a good narrative but only if its read without anyone feeling uncomfortable.)

__//** Ks: **//__ I love a good K debate, particularly fem if that's your thing. Make sure you articulate the alt well and the impact story following the links. I'm totally fine with K affs as long as you emphasize the framing and why my ballot is important. Although, if you read read a reject alt I'm most likely not going to weigh it because they almost never solve. If you're planing on reading really convoluted Ks like Baudrillard, Deluze, Psychoanalysis give me some clear analysis to let me know that you understand what you're reading- plus it makes the debate more accessible for your opponent. Not a huge fan of floating PIKs but if you choose to run it I'll evaluate it and vote off of it if it's not checked by your opponent (but I won't like it).

__//**Theory:**//__ I don't like the idea of "theory debaters" and will definitely vote you down for frivolous theory because it flips the table on any chance of a substance debate. Theory checks abuse (a.k.a floating PIKs). I wont vote on RVIs unless you prove that its frivolous and that there's nothing left to vote on.

__//**DAs:**//__ I'm fine with it. More receptive to specific links/ internal links and wont just sign a ballot with a big stick impact.

__//**CP/PIC:**//__ Also fine. We are all aware that 100% solvency is impossible so do not waste time running it. Make sure to slow down on texts so I get a clear picture of the advocacy and weigh it properly.

__//**Traditional LD:**//__ Framework, framework, framework. is the best way to get the ballot (in any LD round really). It makes me sad when I have to default to an offense-defense paradigm because of a lack of framework weighing.

If you ever have any questions after the round please feel free to ask/ email me: kaylakovar66@gmail.com ( especially if its about fem :))