Luciani,+Lauren

I debated for Plano East in LD for two years and competed in policy for Cornell University for the 2014-2015 & 2015-2016 seasons. I am currently coaching and judging for Williams High School in LD.

Please include my on the email chain and feel free to email me if you have any questions. My email is laurenlaray@gmail.com TLDR (shamelessly stolen from my debate partner): If my judge philosophy would change the arguments you read, you lack conviction. If you lack conviction, you shall surely lack my ballot.

But for those of you who want to know a little bit more about how I view the world of debate, here goes nothing:

Critical Affs: I prefer critical or middle of the road affs to traditional policy affs, but I think that all affs should be tied to the resolution in some way and should have some justification as to why they aren't topical. You need to give me a reason why your advocacy is uniquely important and good for the debate space.

Framework: The "harder" your framework is, the more difficult it will probably be for you to win my ballot, especially if the aff is an identity politics aff. However, I think there is a lot of value to debating policies and have voted on framework more times than not. I value education over fairness, because I believe debate and the world overall is unfair, especially for queer and non-white bodies. If you run framework in front on me, make sure to explain what you think the world of debate should look like and why that is uniquely better than the world of debate that the aff creates or perpetuates. If you're aff, I think clever counter-interpretations on framework are great and can solve for the majority of the offense on the flow.

T: My favorite T debates are ones that force the aff to link into a DA or K or prevent the aff from perming a CP. If you are going to go for T alone, you need to prove clear abuse in the round and how you lose out on valuable education.

Theory: I think most people don't flesh out theory enough for me to reject the team, but I have often rejected arguments because they were abusive. I think competing interpretations are great, but underutilized, and probably err more aff than neg on theory overall.

CPs: I love watching a good CP debate, but am not a huge fan on agent or consult CPs because I think they tend to be run very absuively and thus, am more likely to vote aff (or against the CP) if they run theory. I think PICs however, are usually fine.

DAs: If you run a DA in front of me, make sure to clearly explain the link and internal link chain. If you are aff against a DA, make sure to point out the flaws in the link chain. I will and have voted on zero risk of a link or impact.

Ks: I am most likely familiar with the literature of your K, but that doesn't mean you can just spurt out a bunch of K lingo and expect me to vote for you just because you confused your opponent. Make sure to explain what the world of the alternative looks like and how it functions. If you are aff, make sure to explain how your perm functions and why I should prefer the perm over the alternative alone.