Gnatovich,+Steven

I will vote for any argument if you win it. I always felt that these could be misleading or taken as word so for that reason the best advice I can give you is just do whatever you are most comfortable with. That being said, I have a few comments that I believe could be helpful for you in directing my ballot in your favor.

Some General Ideas 1. It's always good to be nice, have fun and all that - there is no need to be mean. 2. Go Line by line and be clear where you are on the flow, I will evaluate only your opinions and that is easiest in line-by-line form. 3. Smart arguments can be more convincing than evidence if well articulated and characterized. 4. DO IMPACT ANALYSIS. DO IMPACT ANALYSIS. DO IMPACT ANALYSIS. and be efficient. Specific Arguments Counterplans - Are great. All kinds, consultation, process, funding, all are fine. To win a counterplan I think you need a solvency advocate, a competitive option and a net benefit. Without any of those three, winning the debate will be tough. Disads - Good by themselves, better with counterplans. If you plan to go for a case and disad strategy know that I am probably going to grant both sides some type of link to their argument. Comparative analysis is usually the tiebreaker in these debates. Kritiks - I am familiar with most of the critical literature. For the negative, you must win your alternative and make your kritik as case specific as possible. For the affirmative, permutations are good options and make your case interact in the negative's framework as well. Too many times both sides bank too much on winning the framework, both the aff and the kritik will likely be evaluated so articulating that point of interaction is critical. It is my opinion that the aff can easily beat the kritik if they use their own case and rely on specificity. Again, for both sides, specificity will be rewarded. Topicality - Comparative arguments about standards are convincing. It is the responsibility of the negative to find a topical version of the affirmative that works with their interpretation. For the affirmative, arguments about case lists are convincing. In round abuse is usually the standard by which I should the T debate. Theory - I don't really find generic theory blocks convincing - I believe that two levels of a theory argument are much more swaying. For example, conditional consultation counterplans. Theory debates are similar to T debates in that the crux of the debate is usually on the interpretations. You should have theory interpretations. Have fun.