RoseFigura,+Rachel

Kritiks: I'm familiar with kritiks and I think they are good for debate, and will err towards aff when determining topicality.

Disads/Counterplans: Make these specific. You can run your generic disads and cps, but at least do some good analytics on why there is a link and have some killer impact calc.

Theory: Theory debates tend to be less interesting and less educational. But do what you gotta do. Non-traditional debate: I'm a fan of these types of arguments, but I'm also sympathetic to the neg. I don't think non-traditional cases should be an automatic aff win. I'm happy as long as there is a good debate going on.

Other Stuff: -Speed: Go fast, but if you aren't clear, then not only do I think you sound like a drowning chipmunk but I'm also not writing down your argument. -Politeness: Aggressive is good. Confident is good. Being a pretentious jerk, not so much.