van+der+Dys,+Lauren

Lauren van der Dys Woodlands HS (2003-2007) Webster University (2007- present)

I try to be as tab as possible, but if no framework/weighing mechanism is established in the debate, I'll default to a policymaking paradigm. That doesn't mean "please don't run a K strategy" - it means "please, *please* debate framework." Run whatever type of strategy you're most comfortable with. If you're a K debater, go for your criticism. If you're a straight policy kind of debater, then by all means, go for nuclear war and the CP. Just make sure you're laying out warrants like it's your job, and I'll take your argument seriously. While I don't have a lot of experience with non-traditional arguments, I'm pretty in favor of them - in general the performative stuff I have seen has been interesting and well-argued. Though I *like* speed, I tend to accept that it's at least a *little* exclusionary. Again, lay out a clear framework and warrant whatever you're saying and I promise to take you seriously.

I'm going to default to a competing interpretations framework on topicality, but once again, that doesn't mean "reasonability sucks," it just means "please debate framework." I'm totally on board with critiques of t, as well. I enjoy a good procedural debate, and I don't have a particularly high threshold for theory - but, and this is important, I do always assume that I reject arguments, not teams. Unless you do a lot - a *lot* - of work to convince me that condo bad (or whatever) in this specific instance justifies an aff (or neg) ballot, be aware that I will probably just reject the cp (or whatever). In other words: it doesn't take a lot to win a theory argument in front of me, but it does take a lot to win a debate on theory.

Be nice, be entertaining, and feel free to ask any specific questions in the room.