Caporal,+Jack


 * Lexington '11**
 * Michigan State '15**

- Debate is a communication activity. You should convince me to vote for you. What I value the most are comparisons between your evidence and the opponents evidence in the final rebuttals and comparative impact calculus. - You shouldn't assume I know as much about your arguments as you do, explanation is good. - Relating to the communication business, clarity is pretty important. Not only will it impact your points but if I can't understand you then I'm probably not flowing your arguments very well. - Don't clip cards, cross read, etc. - I'm a sucker for specificity - Everything below is just what I personally believe about debate, I can be persuaded otherwise. You should not let my thoughts about debate shape how you debate in front of me, go for the arguments that you are best at.
 * __Top Level Stuff__**

__**Specific Arguments**__

Topicality: It's a voter. I don't think teams need to prove in-round abuse, only that their vision of the topic is better than the other team's. Reasonability arguments are generally under-utilized in the 2ar in a comparative interpretation sense. There needs to be a discussion of terminal impacts in both final rebuttals (who has the larger internal link to predictable limits? is a smaller topic better than a larger one?)

Counterplans: I tend to believe that counterplans that result (recommendations and consult stick out here the most, conditions I'm still a bit undecided on. The more specific the condition is to the aff as opposed to the resolution in general the more accepting I'll be) in the aff are not theoretically legitimate. Counterplan theory arguments, aside from conditionality, are usually only reasons to reject the argument. 2a's need to explain permutations made in the 2ac in some fashion, just saying perm do both or perm do the counterplan is not an argument and I will give the 2nr some leeway in answering 1ar extrapolations of permutations.

Kritiks: I'm fine with them. Don't assume I know as much about your argument as you do, explanation in the final rebuttals will be important. I'm not afraid to pull the trigger on dropped framework or alt solves the case arguments or other arguments that are alike those. Affirmatives should have to defend the representations of the 1ac. Please, please, please at the least contextualize links to the plan text and advantages and preferably read evidence about the plan and the context of internal link/impact evidence. I find it less and less persuasive to just assert links after reading general evidence not about the particular aff or the particular internal link arguments they're making.

Aff's that read no plan/non-traditional (but I hate to use that phrasing): If you don't read a plan OR if you read a plan and don't defend it you're going to be facing a steep uphill battle on T. If you plan on (ie it is your strategy before the debate has started) accusing the other team of being racist, sexist, homophobic etc please strike me.