Schrag,+Lainey

University of Kansas Class of 2019 Debated 4 years at Blue Valley Southwest Currently debating for KU

I debated policy for 4 years and am currently debating for KU. I read policy arguments, but I'm not opposed to hearing other styles. If you can convince me of an argument then I'll vote for (unless it's offensive).

Do whatever you're good at, I don't care. -Speed: Yes. -Disclosure: Yes -Open Cross-X: Yes
 * General:**

This is the style I am most familiar with. -Topicality: I think team's should be topical, but I also believe that it's up to the other team to prove why. I'm most compelled by fairness/limits arguments. -Counterplans: I enjoy counterplans a lot. Open to hearing theory on 'cheating' CPs, however I think CP theory is usually a reason to reject the arg and not the team. -Disads: Remember to have impact calculus on both sides. Explain why your disadvantage outweighs the advantages of the 1ac.
 * Policy Debate:**

I will listen to kritik's on both sides. Top leveling framing is important (how do I evaluate the debate?). Affirmative- I am a policy debater so I evaluate the K similar to how I would evaluate any other policy argument. Win your impacts/framing. Negative- I think that kritik should try to have a specific link to the affirmative and do their best to engage it. Links of omission do not persuade me. Teams should explain how the alt interacts with the impacts of the 1ac otherwise the K just becomes a non-unq da.
 * K Debate:**

I'll vote on condo if that's what it comes down to. For most other theory args, I am more likely to reject the argument instead of the team.
 * Theory:**

I believe that you can be assertive without being aggressive. I will not vote a team that is intentionally making the debate a hostile environment for the other team. If you need to be mean to win a debate, you're doing something wrong.
 * Other:**