Roberts,+Katie

I'm in my third year at USC and I also debated for four years at Juan Diego Catholic High School.

In terms of paperless stuff, you don't have to use prep to flash documents, but don't let it get excessive.

Argumentatively, here are my preferences:

Kritiks: If you read a K I just ask that you don't make assumptions that I have in-depth knowledge of the literature and please give thorough explanations of the argument. Also, when watching these debates I have always preferred a very nuanced explanation of the link level, as well as how the K turns the aff and the alt solves the case.

Counterplans and Disads: I think the neg needs to effectively explain why the counterplan solves each advantage. From the aff, I enjoy seeing well articulated solvency deficits and I think that a permutation can be a good argument as long as the its implications are fleshed out. In terms of disads, turns case arguments are persuasive and relevant, and I think politics debates are also enjoyable to watch, especially when well-researched and nuanced.

Topicality: I think T can be an interesting debate, though keep in mind that I know very little about the topic so generalized references to areas of the topic, acronyms, etc. might go over my head. I probably default to competing interpretations but can be persuaded by reasonability. Make sure you impact arguments made on T.

Theory: In terms of the multiple conditional advocacy debate, I probably lean very slightly aff on the question, but can be persuaded either way. If you go for theory over substance, I won’t dock your speaks.