Hanley,+Adrien

I'm Adrien, I'm a 3rd college-prep debater

I don't have any specific preferences. I went for a oil aff my freshman year, an oil aff half of sophomore year and policy pirates the other half, and both a 1984 aff and a cavity searches aff my junior year. I vote on the flow unless told otherwise.

CP: I love tricky/abusive counterplans if you can argue theory well. That being said, cp theory is just like any other arg and I'l vote on the flow

DA: Anything is fine.

K: Versed in some K authors (wilderson, agamben, bifo), completely unversed in others (beaudrillard, niche, battaille). Specific links to the aff will help. If you speak in lea terms in the rebuttals, clearly explaining and proving the thesis of the K with specific historical and aff specific examples I will be a lot happier than voting for a bunch of buzzwords that neither team understands.

T: Mostly anything is fine. I will be very unhappy if you have a "cookie cutter" T violation that defines surveillance as intelligence gathering, intelligence gathering as mass data collection, and mass data collection as only bulk data because its arguably unethical and means your original authors did not have an intent to define the final defintion and the end of your chain. You should be as direct as possible in your definitions. Also, try not to use evidence from debate coaches, summer lab leaders, or anybody on the payroll of a debate program in T debates. It's pretty unethical.

Affs: whatever you want

Framing: Framing will make me a very happy judge and make a much easier ballot for me. Explain the "nexus question" of the debate at the top of the 2NR and 2AR and what the most important issue you want the judge to resolve at the end of the debate. Does the net benefit to the counterplan outweigh the solvency deficit? Is the aff a better way to solve for violence than the K alternative? How does this nexus question implicate the rest of the arguments in the debate?

Cross X - there is a difference between being mean and being witty/confident. Don't be mean or talk over your opponent. If you have another question politely tell them. Pretend you are in front of your peers.

Speaks - I will give higher speaks for being ruthless/courageous (i.e going for that dropped ASPEC argument), making good strategic decisions (don't go for a the K flow they spent 4 minutes on when they only spent 1 minute on the DA), and for making funny jokes. I will not give higher speaks if I am asked "will you give me higher speaks if I do X?"