Hi, I'm Ashley!

I debated in high school LD debate for four years, qualifying for TFA state, NSDA nationals, and clearing at a couple of bid tournaments. I also had some success in UIL circuit. I was a mentor for W.in Debate my senior year.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

TL;DR:

K- 1

Policy/LARP- 2

non-T/Performance- 2-3

Theory- 3-4

Phil- 4

Tricks/Friv Theory- Strike

General:

- I'll evaluate anything unless it is morally repugnant and could potentially harm someone or a group of people (no racism, sexism, ableism, oppression good, etc.)

- Do not read an argument if you do not have the agency to do so.

- EVIDENCE: you really need to put author qualifications in citations and provide sources. Also, don’t misrepresent evidence. It’s a form of cheating and can easily result in an L 25.

- DISCLOSURE: I think pre-round disclosing is good. Put me on the email chain: rihaniashley@gmail.com

- Extend/compare warrants and weigh! Extending taglines is annoying and doesn’t help you

- Tell me what layer of the debate comes first or else I might make a decision that you will not like.

- I have not done research on the topic. In-depth explanations are helpful

- Creative arguments make me very happy (speaks will be boosted).

- Strategic collapses make me very happy (speaks will be boosted). The 2AR/2NR should absolutely not come down to everything.

- On the line-by-line, numbering arguments makes flowing much easier for me.

- I think long overviews are underrated. When done right, they can be super strategic (be very specific when re-grouping args).

- give me a nice ballot story, make the decision really easy for me!

ONLINE DEBATING:

- slow down

- In the case of disconnections: make sure you are recording your speeches. CONSIDER THIS A WARNING. MY WIFI HAS BEEN UNRELIABLE LATELY SO PLS KEEP THIS IN MIND

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Long version:

K:

Love! I am very familiar with most types of kritiks (I still would like a nice overview). If you want to read a K, you need familiarity.

quality>quantity links. More specific links are better

Explain alt solvency thoroughly. I need to understand the world of the alternative that I am voting for.

Policy/LARP:

Compare evidence. Weigh. Extend warrants.

I have become worse and worse at understanding jargon in these debates, just be very thorough in your explanation instead of making me sit there and try to figure out what "the net benefit to the perm and the uniqueness in the alt of the status quo hijacks the internal link of the impact" means.

CP specific to the aff makes them much better; should have some net benefits. DA should be cohesive and specific as well. That being said, I don’t mind generic DA and CP

If your 1N/1AR is going to be a card dump, please explain the significance of each card (taglines don’t count). I will not do the work for you. This really differentiates between those who simply read what is provided to them by coaches and those who actually understand what they are debating

non-T/performance:

Make it unique. More non-conforming performances seem much more effective to me. If you decidedly read a performance that looks/sounds like every other case, I'm just going to be confused as to what the performance is achieving.

The more creative answers to T you come up, the better.

Rather than only giving me this form of debate good justifications, explain why engaging with this form of debate is good.

If you have other strats besides fw I will be very pleased. like I said, creativity wins me over more

T/Theory:

I only think it is good when there is actual abuse. I enjoy substantive debates much more, but if this is your A-strat then go for it.

Defaults: competing interps, no rvi, dtd

Go slow on analytics! I suck at flowing as it is. I'm not flowing from the doc.

Substantive T debates are much more appealing. Draw out turns/DAs to the method

Clearly establish impacts to standards. Weigh!

Phil:

Be sure to explain it super well and in-depth if you want me to vote on it. I am not deeply familiar with a lot of phil. I am definitely not the judge for dense phil debates. I am going to be lost.

Tricks/Friv Theory:

No!! :( Waste of my time and your opponent’s time and it’s at the expense of you and your opponent’s education. Not willing to vote on it sorry