Bloom,+Colin

Hey,

Just a few things to keep in mind:

First, I do not care what you read in the debate so long as it is not offensive, it is relevant, and you explain what you are talking about.

In general, I like case debates and policy strategies but what ever floats your boat... you'll probably have an easier time convincing me if I can understand what you are talking about.

Second, do not expect that I know exactly what you are talking about the second you start speaking. You have to explain your arguments for me to vote on them.

That being said, I think debate lacks good clash. When you extend your arguments and evidence give warrants.

Counterplans: I think the Neg gets CP fiat. If you want to say otherwise the more power to you, I will listen to it. There needs to be clear explanation of the counter plan and net benefits for me to vote on it.

Kritiks: The K is fine if it is relevant. What is your framework? Why should I vote for the K? etc etc Just make sure to keep things organized and relevant.

Framework: I come into the debate believing the Aff should have a plan and advocate it. It is up to you if you want to change this but you MUST have good explanation.

Theory: I tend to lean towards “reject the argument” over the “team.” I will evaluate anything.

Topicality: Read it if they are not topical… If you plan on winning there has to be real evidence, violations and an explanation of the abuse.

As for experience, I debated for four years in high school at Damien:
 * I went for mostly policy strats
 * I almost never read K’s when I debated.

Speed: You can speak fast but you HAVE to be clear if you want me to flow… no brainer. If you are serious about your theory, topicality, and framework debates you have to slow down.

In conclusion, I will listen to almost anything so long as there is good argumentation. Debate is about having fun and educating yourself. Be respectful and do not throw any fits and you should have no problems.