Thursam,+Joel

Generally speaking i default to policymaker, very big on line by line (actual clash is a lot better than just asking me to vote for what you said) and making sure to provide impact calc on whatever it is you want me to vote for. regardless of what type of off case argument (DA or K) I prefer a specific link that indicates how the aff actually links rather than just a generic plan links argument. Be able to tell the whole story in rebuttals and explain the warrants of what your cards say- give me reasons to vote.

T- i love a good T debate but like anything else must be impacted for me with reasons why it's affects the round, T debates should be case specific and not just a random T

DA- must have a specific link with the whole story of the DA told in the rebuttals and impacted well vs. case

CP- as long as your able to explain and prove why it's the better option i'm open to any type of cp

K- I'm probably not the best judge to run random kritiks with, i'm open to any type of argument but must be able to articulate specific links and provide policy alternatives that are more than just rethink or embrace

theory- i'm fine along with everything else but for me to vote on you must be able to explain its impact in round

be polite, be respectful, and be able to explain to me whatever it is you are trying to go for!