Fisher,+Ella

Hi! I'm Ella- I'm a fourth year policy debater at Notre Dame High School. I guess a little about me would be reasonable thing to be curious about. I've been a 2A for 3 years and a 2N for one. I've been travelling nationally since my first year of debate and I've been to the Cal debate camp and the Michigan 7 week twice. I am currently working to get a second bid to qual to the TOC. I love this activity, it's done a lot for me and I want to impart as much of my knowledge as I can to you. Please don't treat this like a joke. To quote the philosophical favorite of the high school community,Carter Levinson, for you to not take a round seriously "is a waste of my valid ass life." I am usually sleep deprived and want food, so let's laugh about how ridiculous tournaments are together and have fun doing a thing.[They/Them]

__**TL;DR:**__ Do what makes you happy. (read: I am ok with your criticism, I am ok with your cheating process counterplan (but as a 2a it breaks my heart a lil)) Just don't be a dick to other people. Keep yer own prep. If you're aff, affirm.

Now the specifics- be warned: I'm honest.

__**Topicality:**__ Admittedly not a great argument on this topic. T debates can be really really good, but as much as topicality is technical it also needs to be debated out on a more meta level (eg. What would the topic look like depending on which way I vote?) Fairness is not an impact in most instances. Limits and ground arguments can be really good if they're contextual to the aff. Reasonability is a question of aff predictability-it's persuasive to me, but I understand that some affs are blatantly not topical even if they're "predictable." Make me long to have good T debates, you have the ability to blow my mind.


 * __Framework:__** Bleh. My partner and I are very left on the neg, and we tend to avoid running framework. That being said I will listen to it. Technicality on this is important, make it clean. I think impact debates to framework can be interesting against teams that run more identity-based arguments, and I think that framework can be made to not be a "you have to be a hypothetical policy implementation" scpheil. Things I think I might have an ironically-neg bias towards framework for: Baudrillard f*ckery, Bataille f*ckery, your high theory Lenny Brahin pomo bullshit. Identity-based arguments can become tricky. I love any good debate, and if you want to debate framework, and if that's your thing, I will absolutely listen to you.


 * __Criticisms:__** So at one point of my life I was a 2n, and went for the Neoliberalism K, poorly, every neg round. I was a novice that ran Nietzsche. The history of my team is critical f*ckery. Roman Kezios coaches me. I love the k. ~But what body of work are you familiar with?~ I'm glad you asked. I know a thing or two about Agamben (the favorite of my lovely partner Jax), Foucault, Marxian authors (why yes, your Herod evidence is on fire), Nietzsche, Afro-pessimism, Ableism, Feminism, Security, Heidegger (probably a Nazi but tell me why that matters/doesn't matter), and queer/trans theory (this is my shit- I am queer, don't be trans/homo-phobic). I need link analysis though. Don't have your 2nc be blocks that one kid on your team who does work wrote that you "re-tooled" and dropped into your team tub. There are working parts of a k, they intersect, think about this. The aff can probably weigh their impacts, but you need a reason why they're silly. Keep in mind your alt is probably silly too. Think through why you want to run the k, don't just run it.


 * __Disads:__** "Politics is dead, and yet I still have to cut uniqueness updates." Disad debates can actually be really really good, but the more specific the more I'm engaged with them. Your generic terror/politics disad is totally winnable, but tell me a coherent story and plz have a link, plz. Be technical, be strategic. My history as a 1n up until this year mostly consisted of me taking the terror/politics disad- and I think it can be fun to debate if debated effectively. If you're a 1n in a similar position, don't make this a throwaway argument even if your 2n just sort of put it upon you. If you're aff have a good offense/defense balance. Don't just vomit a bad disad debate onto me, I will be sad and crabby.

__**Counterplans:**__ Yum. Have a net benefit. Actually make sure you don't link to this net benefit. Theory debates aren't really my thing so if the counterplan is not ridiculous (read:gbn process cp) I might lean neg. I like it when you have a solvency advocate. Advantage counterplans nowadays seem more like red harrings than anything. Process counterplans can be cheating but damn are they clever. I looooove a really good counterplan + NB debate that's specific to the aff. Tech and truth are equally important. I will read your evidence, I lost a bid round because the judge didn't read a solvency advocate, still salty because I would have qualled. (Shoutout to the homie Lee Quinn for voting us up that round.) Even if I dislike the counterplan I'll still vote you up, and be like damn, that's a cheating counterplan but it was so good.

__**Critical Affirmatives:**__ Hell yeah. I run a k and middle of the road aff, and honestly this is the kind of debate I feel most engaged in. I don't appreciate you speaking for others though. If you are trying to speak from a subject position that you are blatantly never able to experience, my hunch is that you're reading this aff to win/not have to do a lot of work. And even if I don't say anything (which honestly I probably will) You'll see me flipping you off in my eyes. High theory stuff is fun too, make sure the aff is coherent and the authors agree with each other. I appreciate a team that has a fundamental knowledge from the school of philosophy they are reading, so honestly make sure you know what your authors say, I will give you points for this, and appreciate your existence.

__**Things I understand:**__ -you're tired and cranky and dislike everything right now -this might be a really important round, I will do everything I can to make the right decision -you are nervous. I know, I have it too when I debate. -you might take a decision personally, I do this too

__**Things I like/will get you speaker points:**__ -David Bowie references -being a little funny in your speech/cx (DO NOT do this if you are not funny) -references to my relations to Lenny Brahin/Payton Debate -Jokes about Ryan Powell -being a really nice person to the other team -I might giggle if you cut my philosophy and read it in a debate

__**Things I do not like:**__ -being excessively chatty- you know the type. Nervous chatty. Please shut up, stop searching for approval. -being an asshole to the other team -not timing yourself -not speaking up (I'm a bit hard of hearing) -you being an asshole to your partner -being insensitive in round -the antonio evidence -rights malthus