Stuart,+Lyall

Stuart, Lyall [|…] I debated for 4 years at Greenhill, and copied a lot of this from Azhar.
 * 

__**Meta Level Stuff (maybe helpful for LDers reading this)**__

I view debate as a game of competing advocacies and am relatively convinced that is how it should be. This means well articulated impacts are important and clear delineations between your advocacy and the affirmatives. This also means that arguments like 'truth testing' will be harder to win in front of me.

__**Quick Things**__ - Tech > Truth - Specific and ideally well researched strategies will be rewarded - Evidence is good to provide support for arguments, but logic and good analytics are necessary. Extending a piece of evidence without explanation doesn't really get you anywhere. - Do what you do best, but since I debated more CP/Case/DA strategies, I'm more accustomed to them

__**Case**__ Debating the case is underrated -- whether its defense, impact turning, or case turns. Good case debating and strategies will be rewarded.
 * If the 2NR is entirely case I will give you an extra speaker point

__**CPs**__ I went for process CPs a lot and can be a huge fan but they should be specific to the topic and I tend to think consult cps are probably not competitive/good. Well-researched PICs (even word pics) are awesome and the aff will have a hard time winning they are bad. Theory: I don't think arguments besides conditionality/dispositionality bad are reasons to vote aff but can be persuaded on CP theory vs CPs that steal the aff and could be convinced by conditionality bad.

__**DAs**__ Like them. The link needs be to intrinsic to the plan. I think DAs such as Spending and Politics sometimes get too generic and can easily be defeated. Good impact calculus is necessary, especially with cards and internal link/impact defense presses.

__**Ks**__ K's can be strategic and a great argument if it is well-explained with specific application to the AFF. I tend to lean on the side of policymaking & "we get the AFF" framework arguments. Many "cheap shot" arguments are dumb and can be beaten with analytics, but the AFF shouldn't drop them. This all being said, I am not a fan of the genero K's with their corresponding overviews and silly fw args if you are going to go for the K spend time on impact calculus and Alt solvency explanation because I tend to view K's through a CP/DAish lens.

T debates are cool. Topicality should be a comparison of two visions of the topic and the types of arguments associated with those topics. __Impact calculus is necessary.__ Even if the NEG wins the AFF doesn't meet their interpretation, you must explain to me the implications of that. Likewise for the AFF. Read lotsa cards, too. Reasonability is a question of whether your vision of debate is reasonable or not, not whether you are somewhat topical but can be very persuasive to me. Also on T: evidence quality is big here I like voting on predictable definitions based in where the topic literature should be and am a sucker for good predictability arguments. ||
 * __T__**