Warren,+Chas

I've mostly done policy debate but last year at the end of the first semester and into the second semester I ran a planless Queer Theory aff. So that probably means I'm good with whatever you want to do. I usually have a good flow, speed isn’t a problem, and make sure you explain the argument during the round rather than just shadow extending it. I do my best to restrain personal biases in favor of letting the debaters determine the direction of the debate. Do not alter your strategies just for my sake, do what you do best and I will adjust accordingly. Please be respectful to your opponents and to me in the round and I will do my best to reciprocate the kindness. I would like to think of myself as a nice guy, so if you have any questions about myself, my beliefs, how I evaluate rounds, or my philosophy, please feel free to approach me. I would be more than willing to discuss these issues with you.

Topicality- clear abuse is the easiest way to win the ballot when going for T. But reasonability usually checks back against topicality if you really are T.

ASPEC- I enjoy a good ASPEC debate. I think that normal means is probably the easiest way for the aff to win this flow

DAs- Politics DAs are my favorite DAs, the techier the debate gets the more I enjoy it. On Topic Specific DA’s make sure the story is coherent and I’m good to go

CP’s- I like agent cp’s, don’t particularly enjoy consult cp’s, and anything else is fair game as long as it competes.

Theory- condo is fine just make sure you justify what you do, if the aff goes for condo bad better be the only thing in the 2AR or probably not vote on it. If something is ran Dispo, clarify what it means but I lean to it being less abusive than condo so a good middle ground. Perms are default test of comp so therefore not inherently abusive, but if it becomes an advocacy could prove some abuse.

K’s- I like them. I read of alot of Queer literature, but that doesn't mean I'm locked into only understanding that. Explaining the story of the K and I'm good to go.

Case- I love case debates with impact turns, its hard to win a 100% case takeout in front of me.

Framework- I tend to lean towards disagreeing with framework. I think that it has a normalizing effect on the debate community and does silence some voices. That being stated, I could be persuaded to vote on it if there was a reason why participating in those norms are good for the community.