Pearson,+Sidney

I debated at Hillcrest High School (Utah) and did both Policy and PF. I have not judged any rounds on this topic and so will not be totally familiar with your acronyms and such. Speed is fine, just be clear and go slower on tags, if I can’t understand you the argument wont make it on the flow.

Topicality and Theory I have a moderate threshold for these arguments, love a good T debate, but will generally prefer reasonability over a competing interpretations standard. In order to win the theory you MUST PROVE AN ABUSE SCENARIO. Without that abuse, I see no link or impact and thus no reason to vote.

Kritiks I enjoy a well thought out criticism, but am not familiar with most K authors. This means you will have to be thorough in your explanation of the link and alt. I prefer smart Ks over squirrely or absurd ones, but the round is yours and if you are really passionate about the argument I will still hear you and flow you, just note I will grant the aff a lot of leeway answering those arguments. Negs win the K by showing a solid link, extended impact, and clear alt. All three parts are necessary, otherwise the K ends up being a case turn rather than a criticism. The Aff wins the K by showing a combination of no link, case outweighs, no alt solvency, and the perm as long as it is well explained.

Counterplans I love a good CP debate! Not the biggest fan of Consult or Delay, but will still vote on the PIC if you can show me that the CP solvency mechanism is better, faster, more probable than the Aff solvency mechanism.

Disadvantages Again, one of my favorite aspects of policy debate. I thoroughly enjoy a good DA story with a strong case specific link. Uniqueness debate is important, but Affs should do more work than defensive non-unique args. I want to see impact calculus. As the round goes on tell me the story. What does the world after the aff plan look like and how does it compare to the status quo? The story, with warranted claims and analysis, is what will help you win the flow and improve your speaker points.