Day,+Monica

UCLA Class of 2020 Policy Debater at Houston Memorial High School for 4 years

My senior year I was both 2A and a 2N, but in my heart I'm a 2A.

I pretty much read the Gender K all four years of my career and am probably most well versed in its literature. My relationships to most other kritiks can be summed up in the following statement: I've read a lot of (Zizek, Baudrillard, etc) in my sophomore year but I don't understand it. I have no personal opposition to high theory, but structural kritiks are my forte. Clearly explaining what you mean by 'traversing the Fantasy' or 'symbolic exchange' will go a long way for everyone in the room.
 * Kritiks **

I believe that affirmatives should have a clear advocacy that is relevant to (and preferably in the direction of) the topic.
 * Kritikal Affirmatives **

I like topicality. Throughly explaining why their interpretation would harm debate and then properly comparing that to their interpretation is a simple must-have in these debates. There is nothing that frustrates me more than T debates where neither team impacts any part of the T debate.
 * Topicality**