Virts,+Donald

It's better to ask me specific questions than anything but this should give you a general idea about me. First I debated all four years of high school on the national circuit for Loyola High School (LA). I currently debate for UCLA's NPDA parliamentary team. I'm okay with speed (I will let you know if you are unclear) and almost any argument (except for obviously racist/sexist/hateful arguments like patriarchy good or racism good). __**DA's**__ I'm an Economics major at UCLA so I can follow any economy debate you throw at me, however that might not be to your advantage because I generally have a higher threshold on economy DA's than most judges. For example if the plan only spends a couple billion dollars all the Aff has to say is "no brink - we are 1/10 of 1% of the budget no way we lead to a global economic collapse" and I will almost always give the Affirmative the DA. That said if you have really good evidence by all means go for it just know you are facing a higher threshold. On Kritiks, I read a lot of cap and security in High School, but I've since become more straight up. Odds are I understand the thesis of your Kritik but explain it to me and don't get bogged down in the jargon anyways. It's always a good idea to give analogies to help explain how your K and the Aff interacts. Unless you specifically articulate your K's framework by the end of the block I default to util/fiat. K affs are fine just make sure your framework makes it really clear how I am supposed to decide the round. __**T**__ On T I default to an offense/defense paradigm unless you tell me otherwise. No a one sentence articulation of reasonability isn't enough. __**CP**__ Not a fan of generic plan plus cp (like Consult NATO/Russia/Brazil/Japan/Chuck Norris). I am more open to specific, well researched plan plus cp. For ex if there is a lot of literature base on your CP then I'm more likely to give it theoretical legitimacy than otherwise. On theory if I didn't flow your blip then you didn't make it, so you should probably slow down a little bit (this applies to other arguments as well). I consider myself a competent flow but I'm not superhuman. If you have twenty blips on condo I'll almost certainly miss a few of them. Also I like to have each theoretical issue on a separate sheet of paper,so please organize your speech accordingly (and please don't run 8 different theory shells). Also I think condo, pics and perf con are good. Oh and theory is almost always a reason to reject the argument not the team. __**Misc**__ Also I don't usually get authors down so don't expect me to grant you an extension if you only say "ext Grant 95". As always I like warrants, evidence comparison, impact calc, embedded clash etc. Neg should let me know during the 1NC road map if they are going 1 off K because that changes how many sheets of paper I need. Make good arguments, don't be a jerk and have fun.
 * __K's/critical Affs__**
 * __Theory__**

TL;DR - Down with speed, and I vote on good arguments.