Slotter,+Jon

Im open to any type of argument. I debate mostly policy arguments but K’s are okay too. I default policy maker unless you tell me otherwise. I’m okay with speed, but obviously you need to be clear. K’s: The key component to winning a k for me is winning the alt, because it’s the weakest part of the argument. Impact must outweigh or come before the case. Good explanation in the 2n and block just so I know what’s going on. T/Theory I’ll If you are going for T there needs to be a clear violation that doesn’t morph throughout the round (you laugh now but this happens almost every t round) and a clear voting issue whether it be education, fairness, etc. Same goes with theory. However in theory if they drop it, saying they dropped it isn’t enough to make me pull the trigger, there still needs to be a good explanation of why they are abusing you out of the round. CP As long as its competitive, and you have a net benefit I’m okay with it. However crazy it is, just justify it. DA Winning uniqueness and links are key. Must spend time on these and give good solid impact calculus in final speech for me to know how to evaluate the round. Case A good case debate is always fun. A lost art but I would still like to see them.