Unwala,+Azhar

I debated for 4 years at Greenhill, and now I'm debating for Georgetown.

__**Quick Things**__ - Tech > Truth - I like research so well-researched strategies will be rewarded - Evidence is good to provide support for arguments, but logic and good analytics are necessary. Extending a piece of evidence without explanation doesn't really get you anywhere. - Do what you do best, but since I debated more CP/Case/DA strategies, I'm more accustomed to them

__**Case**__ Debating the case is underrated -- whether its defense, impact turning, or case turns. Good case debating and strategies will be rewarded.

__**CPs**__ In terms of process CPs, I'm not a huge fan if they are really generic. Process CPs are awesome if they have specific evidence about the AFF/ topic. Well-researched PICs (even word pics) are awesome. I'm somewhat indifferent in terms of CP theory, but make sure if you are going to defend multiple advocacies/ multiple advocacies that steal the AFF, you have strong defenses of them.

__**DAs**__ Like them. The link needs be to intrinsic to the plan. I think DAs such as Spending and Politics sometimes get too generic and can easily be defeated. Good impact calculus is necessary, especially with cards and internal link/impact defense presses.

__**Ks**__ K's can be strategic and a great argument if it is well-explained with specific application to the AFF. I tend to lean on the side of policymaking & "we get the AFF" framework arguments. Many "cheap shot" arguments are dumb and can be beaten with analytics, but the AFF shouldn't drop them. This all being said, I am not familiar with a lot of Ks so a little more explanation than usual will be necessary.

T debates are cool. Topicality should be a comparison of two visions of the topic and the types of arguments associated with those topics. __Impact calculus is necessary.__ Even if the NEG wins the AFF doesn't meet their interpretation, you must explain to me the implications of that. Likewise for the AFF. Read lotsa cards, too. Reasonability is a question of whether your vision of debate is reasonable or not, not whether you are somewhat topical.
 * __T__**