Lacaze,+Kate

 I am a Varsity debater at Liberty University. Before you make assumptions based off of just that, keep reading... As a general rule, I have a high standard for debate. Don't make dumb or offensive arguments in front of me. Don't be offended if I don't give you extremely high speaker points. I like good argument interaction and impact calculus. By the end of the debate, things should be narrowed down and scenarios and arguments should be being well explained. More specifically:

DA's: I love disadvantages. Not a lot to say here. Just like with case, you need to win your impacts outweigh with GOOD comparative analysis.

CP's: Net Benefits and solvency discrepancies should be well explained. If there is no net benefit explained, I will vote aff on presumption. I'm fine with all types of counterplans, but beware...I am very sensitive to theory arguments such as process CP's bad, Agent CP's bad, etc.

Theory: I love theory. Especially Condo Good/Bad, Agent CP's good/bad...maybe being a 2A, I'm more sympathetic towards offensive theory arguments, so make sure you adjust to that arbitrary attitude of mine. However, theory must always be impacted and offense against it answered! I will not vote against the neg just because you read a block in the 2AC, and give one minute extensions of it in each subsequent speech. Things like intrinsic/severance perms bad, multiple perms bad, etc., are always just a reason to reject the argument, not the team. ASPEC is dumb.

Framework: Pretty much the same as above. I like a good framework debate. I tend to think fair ground and predictability are good things, but I can be convinced that they lead to all sorts of genocide if that argument is made WELL. I can also be convinced that education is more important. It just depends on the way those rounds go down. Don't think you shouldn't read an affirmative without a plan text just because I'm from Liberty. I love those debates and I will be more than willing to hear arguments from both sides.

Kritiks: I love philosophy, I've read some literature, I tend to not be an idiot when it comes to understanding these things. I LOVE language k's. If they say sexist or racist things they should be punished. I can be easily persuaded that language creates reality. There are certain K's that I understand better because they are one's that I run or just love, especially about ethics, etc. Some might take a little more explanation, but if you do a good job, I promise I'm not stupid :).

So, that's about it. If you have more questions, I'm open to giving more details, but I think that about covers it. I love the activity of debate and if done well, I will enjoy the round, respect you as a debater, and reward you with high speaker points.