Bruno,+Jacob

Debated Four years of Policy Debate and 2012 National Debate Qualifier in Policy,

I will keep this short and simple.

I am 100% tab and will literally vote where I am told to if the argument(s) wins.

Here are the notes of a a Flowery-Nihilistic Atheist:

T- If there is no abuse, there is no point in running the argument. Throughout highschool, I hated topicality and I still do. With that aside, I will vote on it if the abuse is there. Aff- Go ahead and run a K of T or RVI if you hit it. I see no reason if both sides can't win on it, if it is introduced. Its only fair...

DA-Totally cool with DA's of any kind. Make you give good reasons why the Aff bites into the link scenario and give good analysis on the Impacts. You will have to give good reason for why I should buy the Nuke War impact, because nuke war arguments are total crap, again I will vote on them.

CP- I have no preferences to CP debates and am cool with any CP imaginable.

K- I was a K debater in highschool and am pretty knowledgeable with the lit base. Anthropocentrism/Deep Ecology was my baby and gave me a love for Kritik debate. All I ask is how I should weigh the round and where the ballot goes. Any kritik is cool, I view it all the same.

K affs- Preformative or anything at all, go for. Just tell me how the ballot should be weighed.

Framework- Essential to a good Kritik debate. I don't come in with any view of the ballot and I want to be told what to weigh.

Theory- Run theory on anything. Seriously. I dare you. Im cool with it.

Anything else- Go for it

=**If anyone dares insult Renekton, I will drop you. He is king of the top lane.**=