Sun,+Will

I debated policy and LD for Parkway Central for 3 years and am now at Harvard. Feel free to run whatever you'd like to run (I've run one-off K to CPs to stock), I'm open to anything that is well-executed. I love debaters that know how to organize (ie. good, non-prewritten overviews), flow (point-by-point responses), and strategize (pick your battles, don't go for everything). Strong comparative analysis will significantly enhance your position. Speed is fine, but you have to be clear. Don't be a douche during CX.

T/Framework/Theory = impact your arguments! For T, I like clash on standards, Aff needs to give a counter interp/reason they meet. For framework, feel free to run it if you think its justified, but if it's merely because you have nothing better to say, this will be very apparent to me. For theory, I generally "punish the argument, not the debater," but if you can prove otherwise, go for it. CP/DA = impact calculus is crucial, esp with net benefits to the CP. K = The alt debate is key for me.
 * Policy preferences**

I'm a policy debater by training, so my knowledge of LD jargon is limited - if you do intend on using such language, be prepared to explain them to me. Theory is fine, but I need impact analysis, and I tend to treat theory as a disad (unless you prove otherwise). Structured speeches and a clean flow will make my job much easier, and be sure to give me reasons why I should vote for certain arguments.
 * LD preferences**