Lotspeich,+Zach

Introduction: As for my debate experience, I am a Junior Varsity debater for Liberty University and I have debated for two years. I run mainly policy arguments and believe that is where i will make my best decision in any given debate round. I have a good flow and believe in line-by-line debating. A dropped argument is a true argument. Extending tag-lines will not win you weight of an argument, I need a claim and a warrant along with it. I think the best debates come when the 2NR and 2AR condense the debate down to the key issues of the round and both debaters win their position respectively.

Topicality and Framework: First, I believe that you should read a plan text. I believe debate is the most fair and educational in a world where the affirmative is tied down to a stable advocacy limited to the resolution. So, if you don't read a plan text, I will have a harder time voting for you. Since, I believe the affirmative should read a plan text, when it comes to topicality, I default to competing interpretations. I would like to see the world of the negatives interpretation versus the world of the affirmatives interpretation and what aff's would be limited and included under each interpretation. That is where you will gain most of your ground with me.

Theory: As for the conditionality debate I believe that you should be able to justify any position that you do run. With that said, my pre-disposition is that 2 conditional advocacies with the option of the status quo is okay. The tension starts to build for me when those two advocacies start to contradict with one another. So, if you fall under my pre-disposition you will probably be fine. When you go for conditionality you should first win your interpretation is better than the neg's and showing in-round abuse is good, but I will still vote on potential abuse.

Counterplans: First, I think that when the negative introduces the cp in the debate presumption shifts to the affirmative. It is the neg's job to show that the cp solves the case better or has a net benefit that will outweigh a potential solvency deficit. But I think they are awesome and I love counterplans that solve all of case and have 1% risk of the Disad as a net benefit. Plan-inclusive counterplans are awesome and think they are justified and very strategic against critical teams. Agent counterplan debates are cool too, and I understand the strategic value in running them against small affirmatives, but you must win the question of ASPEC or else I will vote on perm do the cp. The only cp's I have a problem with are consult cp's. I have run them and will vote on them, but you should be prepared to defend it theoretically and probably have some "say yes" evidence for the solvency of the counterplan.

Disadvantages: The more case specific the better. With that said, relations disadvantages that are basically a straight turn to the affirmatives relation advantages can be complicated and make the story of the affirmative and the negative position very muddled. So, be clear and give me a coherent story as to what will happen when I sign my ballot either for the aff or the neg. I also love the politics disad. It is core neg ground that I myself have gone for a lot in many of my debates. Debate it clearly and give me a good story.

Kritiks: This is not my forte. As stated above, it is not where I will make my best decision in round. With that said, I still appreciate the Kritik and will vote on it if you give me a clear story and win it. I have run a few kritiks in my career such as Speciesism, Cap, Radical Democracy, and a few other topic specific kritiks for the College topic this year. The biggest problem I have with kritiks is the level of the link. If you can win a link that is more specific than you use the USFG then you are in a better spot with me. I do not think you have to win the alternative to win the kritik so kicking the alt is an option in front of me. Overall, Win a clear link, win your K tricks, and do line by line and you will be in a good spot.