Lovecchio,Tom

=**Tom Lovecchio**= =E.L. Meyers (PA)=

I debated 4 years at E.L. Meyers and have seen just about everything from a traditional round to one where someone played a song with a guitar.

I'm a policymaker but I'll evaluate the round however you would like to frame it.

I really only have one argument that I don't want to hear - Every resolution is the best and they just get better year after year, so please don't ask me to reject the resolution or something like that.


 * Topicality**: One of my coaches told me to run T every round regardless of what side I was debating. With that being said, I like good T arguments.


 * Theory**: Theory debates can be interesting as long as you're not reading arguments that lack substance.


 * Speed**: Speed is fine as long as I can actually understand you.


 * K's**: K's must to have a link into the affirmative advocacy/plan and provide an alternative that functions to solve for what the K kritiks. I'm familiar with certain ideas and K authors. For the round assume that I've never heard the K literature and explain it. __**Slow down**__ when you read your K authors. If you're reading an author who I've never heard of and would probably have to read his/her book to understand what they're trying to say, __**Slow Down.**__ Honestly it won't kill you to slow down a little bit.


 * Case**: Love it. I'd love to see more case debates. Impact calculus/analysis is even better.


 * Performance**: I'm not really sure why I have this as a category. The affirmative has to defend some type of **__topical__** plan/advocacy. How the negative wants to argue against that is really up to them, but it has to relate to the resolution for the year and the affirmative plan/advocacy.

If anything is unclear feel free to ask me about it before the round.