Reed,+Justin

I am a games player judge. With that said, I still like good debate. I’m fine with any argument, watch conditionality. I feel this goes without saying but if NEG throws down conditional arguments, AFF can make conditional responses. Realize the debate has to narrow at some point, and the NEG can only take 1 strategy (set of arguments that work together) unless there is a really good reason why I can prefer 2 conditional arguments/strategies coherently. Or if the AFF starts flip-flopping, and more than one NEG strategy needs to be considered just to keep the debate clean. I have some national experience, but if I start giving you weird looks it’s because I want you to explain your argument, I know how Ks work and understand them, but explain the K don’t just start reading Heidegger (granted he’s fairly generic but explain the applicability), you have to convince me the argument works. Generics are fine, but specifics are better. Ks link to anything real world, that doesn’t mean I want to sign the ballot basically saying that “You’re right, the world is a horrible place” because the AFF doesn’t have any control over that. Give me specifics so I can see that “the world is a horrible place, and the AFF plan specifically is going to make it worse.” So make sure your links work. Theory arguments are fine. I should be okay on speed, I’ll yell clear if it isn’t, though keep the tags clear no matter what. Impact debate is great, but save it for the rebuttals. I also want to hear you weigh out everything on the flow – impacts but also arguments. Good strategy is important as well as being able to adapt to your opponent’s strategy i.e. don’t extend every card in the 1AC if NEG goes off case. Put offense on the flow, make concessions, and adequately defend your points.