Anda,+Michael

Debated 4 years at Little Rock Central, prep stops when the e-mail is sent. Speed is fine, so long as you’re actually saying words. Be cool: we’re all here to have fun. I understand that CX can get heated and I enjoy verbal sparring matches. That said, you don’t need to be rude to earn the CX mic-drop that everyone is trying to have. Show each other respect throughout, and the process will be much more enjoyable. I’m open to all styles of argumentation—except for the style that outright ignores the other team’s arguments. This doesn’t mean “the 1AR dropped a subpoint of our education standard”, this means “it’s the 2NR and they have ignored education debate since the end of the 1NC.” If you keep that in mind, this process, too, will be much more enjoyable.

T/FW I enjoy Topicality debates now a lot more than when I debated. I prefer that your interpretation is extended and impacted throughout which should be a no-brainer in but…well; we’ve all been there. It helps for the affirmative to have a counter interpretation. I’m (admittedly) a sucker for well-warranted fairness arguments, especially with respect to how the might set precedents. That said, it’s not an uphill battle to win that education precedes fairness, so long as there’s clear warrant to your argument. When read against critical affs, I use framework as my lens for evaluating the round, so I’m trying my best to hang on to every word you’re saying. This means both sides should say something: this is the place in the round to reach me most directly. Structure matters here because I desperately want you to respond to the arguments being read by the other team (this goes for both sides). There should probably be an interpretation and a violation. I’ve rarely been compelled by framework against Kritiks. This isn’t to say that you can’t be the one to change me. **Much of this applies to Theory: extend the components of your argument and articulate your framework for the activity. I should know what I should reject and why, if that’s the case.

Disads The disad (like the rest of your arguments) should link to the affirmative in some way, shape or form. I don’t differ too heavily from anyone else’s thoughts on the argument. The impacts should outweigh or turn the affirmative.

CP’s-necessary vs sufficient claims are very smart and good to go for in front of me. I think that counterplans should be functionally competitive but can be convinced otherwise. I think counterplans should have a solvency advocate as much as I think affs should have one.

Criticisms I read them a lot in high school. WHAT THIS MEANS is that I enjoy cheeky, well placed criticisms that make me question the foundations of the affirmative. It also means that I enjoy efforts made to force us to answer questions that might not have anything to do with the affirmative. (hint: this is where framework debates get interesting) But, having said all that, this also means that I have a higher threshold than I otherwise might. When the buzzwords increase but your arguments don’t develop I take your argument less seriously. This also does not mean that I’ll outright ignore the aforementioned K Framework. I may agree with you, but you still have to win the debate on paper, i.e. weigh your criticism against the framework, if applicable. If my earlier hints are any indication, I’m inclined to punish teams that don’t respond to the interpretation. I pay a lot of attention to permutation debates. Permutations should also probably be responded to. For me, a conceded argument, that was a blip on an overview, is, sometimes, a true argument. A conceded argument that has been developed and impacted is often a true argument.