Lee,+Peyton

 I debated at Pace & then Northwestern. I graduated NU in 2013. I'm currently in law school. Things to note: 1) 1) I lean a little more tech over truth – as a debater I always felt like a dropped argument (note - "argument" requires a warrant) even when silly, should carry the weight of truth. 2) 2) keep in mind I’ve probably done no work or judging on your topic – that means acronyms need explanation, don’t take for granted background knowledge about your arguments, and T examples for what affs people have been running might require more explanation for me to get your point. Substantive issues: CPs – I probably lean neg on most CP theory issues. Most things are a reason to reject the argument, not the team, and conditionality probably means you should stick them with it. Lots of conditional worlds might be a voting issue. Affs should be more aggressive with permutations against silly cheating counterplans. T – I love T debates. I think good cards are helpful but good explanation of your vision of the topic is essential. I think T is an under utilized tool for limiting the scope of the topic. Ks – I basically never ran K’s. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t – but keep in mind that my background knowledge about the literature will be limited, so explanation is essential. As someone who usually thought of debate through the lens of CPs, the alternative is extremely important. You should have a good explanation of what I’m voting for, whether that is a more concrete explanation of the alt or a well-developed framework argument etc. Affs that don’t defend the resolution – I will do my best to judge the round as debated. However, I find arguments about education and fairness extremely persuasive as reasons teams should defend the resolution. Tying your discussion to the resolution is a good start. Other random things: Stylistic point – I think arguments can be presented in any form. That said, if you do not follow a typical “line by line” structure I might find it difficult to match up your arguments as responses to the other teams. I would highly recommend some form of guidance in your speech for how you think your arguments interact with the other teams. Card clipping policy – I won’t enforce this without it coming up in the debate, but if someone makes an ethics challenge I’ll stop the debate and decide only on that question. Don’t throw accusations around lightly. The burden of proof is on the accusing team and you should have video or some other method of showing that the other team clipped. CX – It matters. I will listen and probably flow parts of it. Don’t waste it.

I have always found debate to be fun, and more so when people are nice to each other. That includes cross-ex and general interactions. If nothing else, rude behavior might affect your speaker points.