Martinez,+Dylan

I debated for Damien High School for 4 years and thus I have a pretty good understanding of most if not all arguments. During my time in debate I preferred Relations DAs, Red Dawn/Red Spread, politics, and good CPs. However I did run a K in almost every round. Those that I am most familiar with and have run are Anthro, Schmitt, Security Ks of all sorts, (some) Deleuze, Psycho, and Burke. Of note is that I have not been active in the debate community this year so I don't know much about the topic so explaining acronyms and jargon would be very helpful. That being said I'm pretty confident that I will catch on fairly quickly and it shouldn't be too much of an issue.

In general, you should feel free to run whatever types of arguments you like and you feel are strategic in any specific debate round. I enjoy a good, specific case/disad and/or counterplan debate, but I also like k debates in which specific link evidence is read (and EXPLAINED), a specific framework/role of the ballot is established and supported by evidence, and the argument is contextualized in terms of the affirmative. That’s not to say there aren’t other things I will vote on. As long as you present a coherent argument and argue it well, I’m fine with anything. A couple other things: 1) A repetition of the tagline and author does not constitute an extension of an argument - I’m looking for specific warrants. I don't like to call for cards after the end of a round so if you think a card will win you the round tell me why. 2) Thoery/T debates are often too fast and do not consist of enough clash. Slow down and address the other teams arguments, do not simply re-read your blocks. If you plan to go for these arguments in the 2NR/2AR I find a clear abuse story more persuasive as I usually have a high threshold for theory. 3)If you're going to run a K make sure that you both know what you're talking about. There is little worse than a bad and/or confused K debate.