Wang,+Lulu

Background - I debated for 4 years at H.H. Dow High School and am now a student at the university of Michigan. Clarity is very important. I wasn't the fastest debater, so if you think you're fast, you may want to slow down for me. DA's - I'm quite fond of policy arguments, but you should do your best to tell a story. Clash is a necessary, but not sufficient condition. Evidence comparison is very important, especially when you're making these generic "X key to X" internal link arguments. CP's - I tend to like CP's, although I am sympathetic to condo bad arguments if you run more than 1 conditional counterplans. I don't like consult, condition, or any of these kinds of process counterplans. I'm not a big fan of agent counterplans, even though I will vote for them. This said, if you feel you have a very clever counterplan that attacks the specific of the case, I will likely enjoy it. K's - Framework and a good story are very important for me. Given that most K's don't have a policy option, if you can't win your framework (ontology, epistemology, etc.) then I likely won't vote for you. Specificity is very important, and I think they greatly enhance the kritik, especially if you're trying to go for a root cause/turns case arguments. Topicality - I used to go for T a lot in high school, so if you feel like you have a good topicality argument, I would be very willing to vote for it. I default to competing interpretations, although if the interpretation really is arbitrary I will be more receptive to the aff's arguments about reasonability.