Chou,+Leslie

I’m a junior at Chattahoochee – I’ve been a 2A.

**Debating ** Run what you’re comfortable with – not to say that you should default to confusing arguments in hopes of confusing the other team – the purpose is to debate, not to see who has the fewest answers to your sketch argument. If you’re not clear, I’m not flowing you. I’ll call clear a couple of times, but if you don’t improve I’ll just give up. I’m technical, but honestly I’ll probably view your argument with a little skepticism if it’s not on the side of truth (that being said, I’m not going to disregard heg bad just because I like heg.) Dropped arguments are probably true arguments, but not necessarily a reason why you win the debate – you’ll still have to impact that for me. Use cross-x to your advantage – don’t just randomly ask questions – speaker points increase when you’re utilizing cross-x well and then bringing it later in speeches

**Evidence ** If you don’t properly explain it, I’m not going to look at it. Yes, good evidence is important, but so is your extrapolation.

**Speaking ** 27.5 average, 30’s probably won’t happen

** Topicality ** It’s alright, not your best strategy unless the aff is actually untopical, I normally default to competing interpretations but I’m easily persuaded to reasonability

**Counterplans** <span style="background-color: rgba(255,255,255,0.917969); color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">“Cheating” counterplans can be useful if they’re well developed, but they’re not very competitive. There is not always a risk of a net benefit. I won’t kick the counterplan for you – when you present it in the 2NR that is the only world you’re going for.

<span style="background-color: rgba(255,255,255,0.917969); color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">**<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Kritiks ** <span style="background-color: rgba(255,255,255,0.917969); color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">I’m not very good with them – I normally tend to lean aff on questions like framework. However, if your kritik is specific to the affirmative, go for it. Don’t rely on tricks to win you the debate – the aff dropping subpoint j on your overview doesn’t mean you auto win. The aff gets to weigh their impacts and the neg gets to weigh their K.

<span style="background-color: rgba(255,255,255,0.917969); color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">** Disads ** <span style="background-color: rgba(255,255,255,0.917969); color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Politics disads are a good thing, even if their internal link is sketch. The aff tends to not do a good job on pressing the neg about the often terrible evidence that they read. Politics theory is meh. Yay disad and case debates!

<span style="background-color: rgba(255,255,255,0.917969); color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">**<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Theory ** <span style="background-color: rgba(255,255,255,0.917969); color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Most theory is a reason to reject the argument, not the team <span style="background-color: rgba(255,255,255,0.917969); color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">2 conditional advocacies are okay, if they directly contradict it’s probably bad

<span style="background-color: rgba(255,255,255,0.917969); color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Be funny and don’t be a jerk – have fun!

<span style="background-color: rgba(255,255,255,0.917969); color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">I love anduuuu :)