Luther,+Emily

**Email** emilyluther16@gmail.com **Background** Policy debater at Gonzaga University **General Thoughts** Debate is meant to be fun and competitive but also a safe space for debaters within it. I am open to listening to any arguments, but will immediately reject any violence within rounds. **CP** Every CP needs to be competitive and needs a clear net benefit. CP theory is persuasive against CP's that steals the entirety of the AFF. **DA** If read alone you need to win that the impact outweighs the affirmative, your 2nr needs to include impact calc. If read with a cp you need to win that the CP solves the affirmative and clear solvency for the net benefit. **Kritiks (Neg)** Fine with whatever you want to read, make sure the link is clear and impact is extended in order to go for the alternative. I am familiar with most of kritiks that being said, make sure to be clear and able to fully explain the k and the world of the alternative. Please avoid absurdly long overviews, they are hard to flow and most of the explanation in the overview should be covered in the line by line anyway. **Kritiks (Aff)** They should maintain some connection to the topic or framework is a very persuasive argument. Need to have a very clear role of the ballot and a clear advocacy statement, if these arent clear perms are not persuasive. If reading a framing argument put it on a separate sheet. Again avoid absurdly long overviews, unless the entirety of the 1ac was dropped, most of this work should be done on the line by line. **Framework** I think framework is a persuasive argument especially if the affirmative doesn't have an advocacy statement. Your framework should have a TVA or I weigh 100% of the affirmatives impacts against it. I do think that topic education is important and debatability is key. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**Topicality** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I default to reasonability, that being said I will vote on potential abuse but make sure to be clear on what standards the affirmative is setting for debate. The education topic has opened the doors for a ton of soft left affs, make sure to make any standard arguments specific to education against these affs and answer their specific forms of education. On the aff I will weigh the specific education of the aff against broader education claims. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**Theory** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Don't read ridiculous theory arguments, if there is in round abuse I will vote on theory but am not likely to consider it unless it was completely dropped by the other team.