Fulgenzi,+Forrest

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. 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.