Santos,+Amy

UPDATE 11/18/17: If you don't provide your opponents a copy of the evidence you read for the entire duration of the round, I will drop you and give you the lowest possible speaks.

I debated for 3 years at Presentation HS in LD and policy. I read mostly fem and performance stuff my senior year but I'm also familiar with other Ks, policy args, theory, etc. I'm cool with you reading whatever you want/are comfortable with, as long as you understand and explain it well!

Ks: I love K debate, particularly identity and performance Ks. I like it when people understand their argument and the lit it comes from! If you can't explain your K without talking in circles and repeating a ton of buzzwords, you should do some more research before you read it in a debate round! Basically, if your K is really poorly explained/executed, I won't vote on it just because I like the lit.

Policy: I didn't read a lot of policy stuff in after my junior year, but I enjoy policy debates a lot! I like good evidence comparison, impact weighing, and overviews/underviews. I tend to lean aff in a lot of CP theory debates.

Framework: I'll vote for framework against a non-T aff, but I think there's a way better way for rounds like this to pan out! In my opinion, it's always better and more strategic to engage the lit of the aff and read further left Ks than to read framework. It makes debates more interesting and inclusive, and every performance debater is super prepped against framework, so you'll likely be more successful. Also, I think that impact turns to/Ks of theory are really persuasive, so again, it's in your best interest to ENGAGE THE AFF! Usually debaters who say they have no ground or can't clash with the aff are just being lazy, and it's kinda annoying. But like I said before, I'll vote for framework if you're winning it.

Theory/T: I understand that there are some rounds where you really need to check abuse or whatever, and I'm fine with that, but I think most theory is pretty frivolous. I'll vote on it, but I probably won't be super into it. I'm particularly sympathetic to disclosure theory, but you could persuade me otherwise. T is also fine but still mildly annoying. I default to reasonability on theory and T. Also, potential abuse is not a thing.

Phil: I don't understand dense phil very well, so you need to explain it to me really clearly or I won't vote for you. I think phil debates are pretty boring and confusing in general so if you're like super obsessed with it and that's the only thing you're willing to read, you probably shouldn't pref me.

The easiest way to win in front of me is to clearly explain your position and why you're winning. Collapsing to a few main arguments and explaining them well is always better than having too many blippy arguments that nobody but you understands.

The easiest way to get good speaks from me is to be passionate about what you defend and read positions you care about. Debate matters, so don't treat it like a joke. Please don't be blatantly sexist, racist, ableist, trans/homophobic, or other things like that.

I can flow most speeds, but I'll say clear/slow if I can't understand you. I don't care if you sit or stand or what you're wearing or anything like that. Please include me on the email chain (amysantos882@gmail.com) or however else you're exchanging speech docs.