Tracy,+Tony

History: 4 Years High School, 4 Years College, 1 Year Coaching Years Judging: 6 (less rounds while I was competing, but still judging occasionally)

It's true; I ran critical arguments in nearly every debate of my last 5 years of debating. This, however, does not mean that you should adjust your strategy according to that fact. Do what you enjoy, because you will probably be the best at that. There are things that matter a bit more than what school of debate you prefer:

1. Analyze and explain arguments, don’t just extend them. Even if someone concedes an argument, you must extend it and impact it to win on it.

2. Specificity is pretty awesome. Generic strategies against specific aff’s are going to have a hard time. Detailed, specific analysis is always preferable.

3. Don’t sacrifice communication for speed.

4. Evidence quality is important.

5. I have a high threshold for theory arguments, I don’t like to have to sort through blippy, fast theory args without much explanation. However, sometimes you need to run theory, just remember it’s a higher threshold for me. If you have to, it should be run like you would a disad- with impact and weight.

6. I enjoy CP/DA debates, but I am not a judge that automatically votes NEG "if there is .001% of a link." Most DAs are stupid and you don’t need a card to prove it. Persuasive, strong defensive and analytic arguments by the AFF can defeat a DA/CP if the link is generic or non-sensical.

7. I enjoy Kritik debates, but I probably have a higher threshold for this than I do for bad disads. You should do this well. I prefer affirmative specific links stories and unique/creative criticisms. I dislike generic k’s like ‘state bad’