Cody,+Kelly

Background- I did policy debate for four years at Colleyville Heritage High School. I also worked as a lab leader at UNT MGWs in 2014. Currently, I work with Jesuit, primarily their novice team.

I don't really have a fundamental problem with any argument. I figure you should be able to run anything you want as long as you explain it cohesively. That being said, I am a bigger fan of policy debates than kritikal debates.

__**Disads:**__ Disads are awesome. I think impact calculus is definitely your friend.

__**Kritiks:**__ I haven't read a lot of the literature for a lot of kritiks (excluding environmental dualism and capitalism), so don't expect me to do a lot of work for you absent sufficient explanation. I also find that K debates have a tendency to get pretty messy, so be careful. Technical K debates are actually really fun for me to watch, so if you think you can run a K well, then you should. I also believe that in most cases you need to win an external impact to your K, as opposed to just turns case arguments or root cause arguments (this first part also applies to disads).

__**CPs:**__ I really enjoy a good PIC debate. I enjoy multiple plank counterplans significantly less. I think a counterplan can have multiple planks, but make sure there isn't an absurd amount and that the plan is actually feasible. It's pretty hard to convince me a CP is illegitimate.

__**Theory:**__ I'm not a huge fan of theory. If the other team is being blatantly abusive, I think you should run it. In order for me to vote on theory I think you need to explicitly explain what the violation is and why voting the other team down is key to set a precedent. You can definitely use it as a strategic tool and if the other team drops it, you should consider going for it, but long theory debates aren't really my forte.

__**Topicality:**__ I'm fine with topicality but you need to make sure you clearly explain your violation and the terminal impact to the violation.