Clark,+Jake

I would consider myself a policy maker, but I’m fine with anything and moving frameworks. However, I want smart arguments. Whether it be inherency or Spanos, I want you to know what you are actually debating not just want you are reading. Aside from that, I don’t really care.

Speed: Per normal, I am fine with speed as long as its clear. If you’re reading theory or an incredibly technical card on a K, I would prefer that you slow slightly so I can keep up.

Topicality: I’m fine purely on competing interpretations, but I think a tangible violation makes your topicality but more complying.

DAs: Of course, I think they are both strategic and worth the debate. Defiantly worth being apart of the 1NC strategy in my opinion.

K: Ks were never a huge part of my strategy when I debated. So, I am not overly familiar with more obscure K literature. However, I am fine if you run it. I would just like it explained well and clearly understood by the debaters. Its not necessary, but I think Ks are more strategic if the alternative can also function as policy option.

General: I don’t think it is strategic to run throwaway arguments. If its ran in the 1NC, I think that it should at least have the possibility of being closed for.

I realize this is really basic. If you have more questions, please ask.