Henderson,+Cameron

**Me** I'm in my third year debating at the University of Georgia (Go Dawgs!!) and I debated for Houston County High School for 4 years.

If you have any other questions, email me at **camhen.debate@gmail.com - I would like to be on the email chain.** - I won't read evidence "inserted into the debate." Debate's a communication activity and it justifies highlighting large parts of other people's ev which you couldn't read in a speech because of time constraints. I also don't know why it isn't the same as inserting a 20 min 1AC into the debate. Just read their re-highlighted ev or make broad indicts about the context of the ev. I think this practice is unethical. TLDR : Plans or GTFO Prep Time ends when the jump drive leaves your computer. I am very much so tech > truth. Body shaming is bad.

**Please Don't:** Be Rude or aggressive towards me, your opponent or your partner Perform or imitate a sex act of any kind Talk about suicide Get naked

**Please Do:** Read a plan Defend a course of action Defend your consequences

Have a competitive methodology **Case Debate** I like specific case debate. Shows you put in the hard work it takes to research and defeat the aff. I will reward hard work if there is solid Internal link debating. I think case specific disads are also pretty good if well thought out and executed. I like impact turn debates. Cleanly executed ones will usually result in a neg ballot -- messy debates, however, will not. **Topicality** I enjoy T debates, but please give me comparing visions of the topic (case lists are important). I default to competing interpretations but can be convinced otherwise; please put some effort into your reasonability arguments. You are fighting an uphill battle if you're trying to go for T must be a QPQ. **Theory** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Slow down**. If you want me to vote on it, you have to give me time to actually write down your arguments. I have a pretty high threshold for condo with 2 or fewer condo options. More than 2 conditional advocacies is probably abusive. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**DA** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">The link is really important to me. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">I love good politics debate. The 1NR should do solid evidence comparison. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**K** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Links should be specific and well explained (there's a trend here). Don't get lost in buzzwords - make actual arguments. The aff should probably get to weigh their aff, but if they shouldn't, explain to me why. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Too many times I see debaters forget about case – it’s still there.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">If you’re aff against the K, don’t forget your aff. I dislike rejection alts- realistically your aff is a DA to the alt, impact it. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Death is bad. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**CP** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">They're cool. The more germane to the aff/topic they are, the more I will like them. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Process CP’s are probably bad. I think you need a solvency advocate (with rare exceptions). <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**K affs** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">are fine- you have to have a plan. You should defend that plan. Affs who don't will prob lose to framework. A lot.... <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**NonTraditional Teams**

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">If not defending a plan is your thing, I'm not your judge. I think topical plans are good. I think the aff needs to read a topical plan and defend the action of that topical plan. I don't think using the USFG is racist, sexist, homophobic or ablest. I am persuaded by T/Framework in these scenarios. I also think if you've made the good faith effort to engage, then you should be rewarded. These arguments make more sense on the negative but I am not compelled by arguments that claim: "you didn't talk about it, so you should lose."