Nussenzveig,Nick

I'll just give you a brief philosophy. If you have any questions, let me know! T-I generally default to competing interpretations. However, my threshold on potential abuse is very high, as is my threshold on impact comparison on Topicality. Theory-My threshold here on potential abuse is also very high. I don't think reading theory every round is A) Productive and educational or B) Necessary and interesting. If you want to read theory, feel free to, but don't just reread blocks that you prepared 2 years ago. K's- I'm generally much more comfortable in a K debate than procedural debate. I've delved into the literature in multiple different areas, but don't assume that I've read the lit in whatever area you're talking about. Try to not just read generic links, but apply your argument to the affirmative in multiple different ways. i.e. links to the aff that aren't just "you try to increase economic growth that's capitalist". Throwing out buzz words and jargon is also something that won't win you a ballot, unless the other team does it worse. DA- Internal link chains are extremely necessary lol. I think that, along with impact comparison, are things that should happen in every rebuttal, if not every speech, with clear voters and ways for me to frame my ballot i.e. impact calc. What should I prefer, magnitude, timeframe, etc. and why? CP-I like CP's that are tailored to the aff, cut out of their solvency ev, etc. Generic CP's are fine, but try to spice things up a bit. Make sure there are clear net benefits, whether they be internal or external.

Being misogynistic, heteronormative, ablenormative, racist, etc, will result in an automatic 0 zero speaker points from me if it's egregious. There are microaggressions that individuals may not be aware of, and those won't be punished, but being blatantly discriminatory and/or using discursively violent phrases after being asked to stop, or being supportive of any of the aforementioned attitudes will not be rewarded in any way.