Hanan,+Emma

My name is **Emma Hanan**. I debated LD for 4 years at **The Kinkaid School** in Houston, Texas. I currently attend Rice University.

The Kinkaid School
 * Conflicts-**

I qualled for TFA State my sophomore, junior, and senior years. I was in the bid round at St. Marks my senior year. I won or reached finals at many local tournaments and consistently broke at national circuit tournaments. I have coached for the Strake Jesuit No Limits Debate Camp and NSD Texas Debate Camp.
 * Experience-**

__**PARADIGM:**__

 * Short Version-**

Run anything you want so long as it's not morally or ethically offensive. I am ok at flowing so you should go at 75% speed and make sure authors and tag lines are clear. I will yell "clear" if I need to but only dock speaker points if I have to do so excessively. My favorite types of arguments are policy-style and K but I will evaluate any argument so long as you support it and weigh it. I really dislike theory and would prefer you didn't run it, but will evaluate it if you do run it; it will just make me sad (See Long Version on Theory).


 * Long Version-**

__Speed:__ Spreading is fine. To make sure I flow everything, you should go at 75% speed and make sure authors and tag lines are clear. I will yell "clear" if I need to but only dock speaker points if I have to do so excessively.

__Framework:__ I am not a philosophy expert so really in depth and complex philosophical debates will need short overviews or clarifications to make sure I am on the same page. I will vote off of anything granted it's warranted and you win it. My favorite framework to run was utilitarianism and I am the most comfortable evaluating those debates but I will evaluate any argument or framing you as the debater present to me. No matter what framework you are using, please make sure to do weighing between your opponent's and your own as to why one is a better mechanism for a guide to action as well as why it's better for adjudicating the debate round. I don't really think debaters need an explicit "value," i.e. morality, justice, etc. because I think they are ultimately the same thing and those debates tend to be unnecessarily time consuming and circular--not to mention boring to listen to. A simple standard with justifications is sufficient in my opinion.

__Kritiks (Ks):__ I have always found K debates to be extremely fun and interesting so feel free to run them whether debating aff or neg. The types of Ks I ran most often were Cap Ks of various variations, Ableism Ks, and Race Ks. I love hearing new types of Ks though so whatever you've got, go for it. Really creative positions are fun and enjoyable to listen to; just make sure you're explaining things well and clearly.

__Policy Arguments (Plans, Counterplans, and Disads):__ I think every aff I read was a plan, so I definitely feel comfortable evaluating these debates. I tend to find them more interesting because they allow for niches of a topic to be explored and it prevents topics from getting old and over discussed. Just make sure you have all the parts and can defend them when you are running these, i.e. that your counterplan is competitive, that your brink evidence is recent, etc. Also, VERY IMPORTANT, do not sacrifice the quality of arguments for quantity. If you run 7 disads but all of them are crap, I will not be very happy and I promise it will not be a very good debate. Take the time to fully develop your positions and arguments so that a meaningful debate can occur.

__Theory:__ I default to competing interpretations. I default RVIs. Arguments can be made telling me to adjudicate the theory debate in another way, but those arguments have to be made (obviously). I didn't really ever run theory because I didn't particularly enjoy it and was never very good at it. So, I would prefer if theory was not used in the round. If it needs to be, obviously use it to combat abuse, but please don't load up your case with 20 tricky theory spikes and have theory as your strat going in. If you decide to anyway, I will evaluate it fairly and justly but you should do so knowing that I am not super theory savvy so I may not evaluate it with the precision and insight you might otherwise hope for. I can only do my best. I personally believe that the NDCA wiki is good and disclosing on it as a practice is good so I encourage you to run disclosure theory if it applies.

__Topicality:__ It's a thing. I personally think if you beat back a topicality shell you should be able to get an RVI, but again, you must make arguments to why that's true or not. I had topicality run against me a fair amount since my affs were rarely topical, so I feel pretty comfortable evaluating it.

__General Notes:__ Have fun and make good arguments. Don't be mean. Run what you feel most comfortable with and try to shift the debate to your comfort zone. Don't run a particular strategy just because you think I'll like it better; your goal should be first and foremost to win the round. I'll evaluate whatever you give me to the best of my abilities. I like to laugh so if you can do that, I'll probably give you higher speaker points--but don't try to be funny if that's not your thing. I enjoy debaters with distinct personality, so just be yourself.