Caleb+Coggeshall

clash of civs: I think the aff should relate somewhat to the topic, I do not think the aff has to defend a plan. I always read K arguments but I enjoy policy rounds with good impact analysis and evidence comparison. I am probably slightly biased towards K arguments. You should not take this as "We can't read policy args in front of this judge" but rather "we shouldn't be afraid to read k args in front of this judge." If there's a K you've been wanting to run but have been unable to because of conservative judges, by all means don't be discouraged in running in front of me. However, if policy is your primary background don't try to read a K you don't understand just to appeal to me. There is nothing I hate more than a debater who reads a K that has no clue what they are talking about.

I think c/x is important and can win debate rounds. Don't ask questions that just waste time so your partner can prepare, get links, show flaws in their arguments, go offensive on them. C/X should not just be you clarifying their arguments. Don't be afraid to be sassy in C/X, especially if it's your c/x. I like sass. I'm fine with open c/x.

K/performance Affs - I love these. I can't really offer any advice beyond generics because in my experience every k/performance aff is so different that it's hard to give generalized advice that will be applicable. All I can say is that a lot of times there is a performative contradiction done by the aff done at some point in the round. Embody your 1AC in every speech and stay true to it.

DAs - A lot of debaters spend too much time on stressing their impacts and not enough time on the link level. LINKS ARE IMPORTANT AND NEED TO BE SPECIFIC. I also want evidence comparison and an impact analysis in every speech after the 1N. This is how you will win/beat the disad, do not just stress your impacts over and over again. This does not mean you shouldn't explain your extinction scenarios but you can't just keep saying extinction extinction extinction over and over.

CPs- i also like these and would like to see more counter plans during policy rounds. Probably my favorite type of policy arg.

Kritiks - links specific to the 1ac/topic are ideal. Remember to spend some time on alt solvency. Include a role of the ballot and a framework for evaluating the round. Do not read a kritik you don't understand. I get that you may not run a kritik "well" if you are new and might have trouble explaining it in context of the round, but you should at least be able to understand the general philosophy and ideology behind whatever k you are reading. remember to utilize your c/x for link args. also, when answering the k dont make dumb, unwarranted arguments like "the ussr was a failure" against the cap k or "peta sucks" against anthro. if there is a k you don't understand that is being ran against you, go all in on perm, weigh aff against the k, and no link args.

FWK - I will vote on it. I think it is a good argument to read against K affs although I think sometimes people are too right-wing on this. Many K affs are abusive and unfair for reasons other than not defending policy implementation. If you want to be a fascist though by all means go ahead. Just remember to tell me why they are breaking the rules, why breaking the rules is bad, and why that's enough for me to vote for you.

T - Please slow down on your interpretations, violations, voters, ect. This goes for fwk too. Like I said for fwk you need to actually impact this argument. Tell me why not being T is a reason for me to vote for you.

Theory - To be honest most theory args are the same arguments I hear over and over again that don't really bring anything new to the table. It's just blocks against blocks and usually it becomes a non-voter. If you read theory and don't plan on going for it I'm going to be annoyed. I have a high threshold for theory debates so if you're going to go for it, go all in on it. If I were you I would avoid reading theory in front of me if I could, but if it's your last resort then by all means go for it.

Other things: I stop prep when the file is saved to the flash drive. SLOW DOWN when reading your tags and cites. If you do not I might not be able to flow it and will not evaluate your argument. Offensive arguments like "rape good" "white supremacy is awesome" should probably not be read in front of me. If you want to answer a fem K don't say rape good, say patriarchy key to space or read hedge turns. I will evaluate arguments that call you out on creating a hostile environment for the debate space and probably dislike you as a person. Look at me during c/x. Swearing in round can be effective for your ethos, it can also destroy it. I will evaluate it on a case by case basis. watch out for glang tho use all your prep and speech time. There is no reason for you not to. If you run out of things to say then either have your partner coach you or just do some evidence comparison. You can always destroy their arguments more. stay beautiful.