Hall,+Dillon

Emory University, went to high school at Westminster
 * __School:__**

**General** ** : ** I have a low threshold for someone being rude in a debate - if you are even slightly rude, odds are it will reflect in your speaker points. I'm open to every type of argument. No plan AFF, plan AFF , etc. Do whatever you want. Recognize that I believe debate is a persuasive activity, and tend to not be a big fan of teams that just read blocks. I default to tech over truth on most questions. A dropped argument is //__mostly__// a true argument. If it's incredibly illogical, then the other team can come back from it by making smart cross-applications and usually dropped arguments aren't always devastating (unless of course you drop a devastating argument). The 2nr/2ar shouldn't just point out "x" argument is dropped but **explain** how that implicates the meta -level framing of a large issue. I will not express how i'm feeling as i'm listening to a speech.

I love case debates, but I have found that the debate community largely leans AFF on case debates - I will try my best to not fall into this bias, but it's probably a good idea to preempt "try or die" framing in a 2AR, or prevent it from occuring by making arguments like status quo solves. I'm especially a big fan of people who rant for a long time about why the other team's internal link is silly. I'm not a huge fan of impact turns in comparison to typical case turns, but if you're able to do them in an organized manner props to you and you should do so in front of me.
 * __Case__ : **


 * __Advantage CP__ : ** I automatically view these in a lens of sufficient vs. necessary. If you are AFF, be sure to point out the logical flaws of advantage CPs . Usually they link to politics.

**__Cheating CP__:** The more cheating, the better. See theory section for further details.

Impact calculus is important but don't get carried away - i'm not a huge fan (yet I do this too) of a super top heavy DA. I enjoy relating arguments with other arguments - "link controls directly on uniqueness" etc. I have no problem assigning no risk to a DA. Two most compelling impact frames: existential risk and time frame.
 * __DA__ : **

I've always found these the most interesting parts of debate. I'm open to whatever K you want to read. Please, please, please be technical. Respond to the line by line in order. Do not give me an enormous overview. You should not use terms that require me to be well acquainted with your author. I am a big fan of cheap shots on kritiks, but will allow a new 2AR response if it is less than a 5 second long argument. Cross applications can make it so that these cheapshots usually aren't that damning. If you are AFF, I have a tendency to prefer permutations absent great link analysis. Why does the perm not overcome the plan but the alternative overcomes x? Ok. Also, usually in 2NC cx you should figure out what their alternative is. If you don't know, I probably don't know either.
 * Kritik : **

A good T debate is hard to decide, usually ending up AFF but that's only if it's really good. T is a great block extension and certainly something that I enjoy hearing. The more specific violation, the better.
 * __Topicality__ : **

**K AFF / Framework** ** : ** Explain your argument, I am not ideologically opposed to framework, but I don't understand the point of reading cards from debate coaches on framework. I think it should be a more theoretical debate rather than reading a bunch of cards written by debate coaches. I think what the AFF actually does should be contested more often.

**__Theory__:** Do it. I will ensure that I view theory **solely** through a technical lens, with the exception of theoretical arguments against kicked arguments (i.e. vague alts bad when the K isn't the 2NR). You can win that 1 dispo CP is bad in front of me if you win that.