Fiebrantz,+Alyssa

**UPDATE OCTOBER 12 - I broke my left wrist, cast is off!! I might need to go back to aflowing on paper by the end of the weekend** **Experience:** Director of Forensics and Full time policy debate coach at Cypress Bay High School (4 years). Debated policy in HS in Southern CA & College at CSULB, did NPDA at Washburn.

**General:** Read whatever arguments you would like to read that you think are best appropriate for that round. I will not wholesale discount or credit arguments at face value. I think people should be nice to each other. I prefer well researched, executed positions whether that be in the form of traditional or non traditional strategies. Please compare impacts, warrants and cards especially in rebuttals. I believe in tech over truth, if an argument is dropped it's probably true. While this might be difficult depending on the argument, I prefer to have the least amount of judge intervention. Most importantly I believe the debate round isn't about me it's about the debaters.

**Framework Debates:** I do not think I lean one way or the other. I think good in-depth framework debates are certainly part of the debate. I don't think you need to defend a plan or the state necessarily but I do think you need to defend your interpretation of debate if asked. Tech >Truth which means specific line by line debates are awesome but be sure you compare worlds/standards. I think you need to extend an interp and violations if you go for Framework in the 2NR/AR.

**Non Traditional Debate:** I think these debates can be awesome and really enjoyable to watch, however I think you need to defend your interpretation of debate. If that means you don't have to talk about the resolution then tell me why. If that means you don't have to have a plan text that's fine just explain/defend yourself. I sometimes find Framework arguments responsive, and reasons to reject the affirmative it quite honestly just depends on the debate round.

**Topicality:** I think a lot of the affirmatives on this year's topic are not topical. However if you go for T you need to do it well (just like anything else) you also need to extend an interp, violation, and reason to vote in the 2NR. I prefer explanations of what each interpretation justifies versus bickering about in round abuse. I think most specs are silly unless severely warranted or debated well.

I don't think my opinions on traditional debate disads/cps etc are particularly unique. They're good arguments and things you can win, I prefer topic specific research to generic spending disadvantages but if you win the argument than you win the argument.

Debate is fun, super cool and we should treat it as such!!

E-mail me if you have any questions :) alyfiebrantz@gmail.com