Sharpe,+Stacey

Currently a junior debater at UGA - I didn't debate in high school, but I've been debating for the last two years in college.

__ Topicality __ I don't know a whole lot about this years lit or what T violations were popular at camp, so I can be swayed by any violation really if it's well debated. I like neg teams that can spin a topical version of the aff and have a reasonable case list.

__ Disads __ Love a good disad debate, especially one that's aff specific. If you can win on disad and case, that's awesome.

__ Politics Disad __

While elections DA makes more sense to me this year, won't punish you for reading politics instead - execute it well, and anything could happen. I'm persuaded by by an aff team that really focuses in on why PC isn't key, or why the plan wouldn't cause people who current support the bill to no longer support the bill (an assertion I never understood).

As far as uniqueness controls direction of link and vice versa, I think even if a neg team wins a large risk of uniqueness, uniqueness is always 50/50, nothing is ever passing 100%, so debating the link is more important. But then again, if the 2NC/2NR sets up the framework of uniq controls the link and it's not refuted by the aff, then I would probably swing neg.

Elections DA is fine, makes more sense to me

__ Counterplans __ Neg teams get away with too much. But if the aff refuses to be good at theory and be ready to roll on textual/functional competition etc then I'll vote on consult, condition, other processes etc.

__ Kritiks __

I do not like the K. That doesn't mean I won't vote for it, and I have before, but if you choose to run it in front of me, make sure you're explanation is well articulated and thorough. Not super familiar with the far left Ks, so really, EXPLAIN YOURSELF. If I can't understand your argument, no matter how valid you might find it to be, I won't vote for it.

__ Case __

LOVE case debates - most underutilized strategy in the neg arsenal and by and large 2AC's are very poor on the case debate. I think disads on case are strategic because 2As don't take them as seriously (just don't as long as they're like not in the middle of the flow because it makes the extension of the disad harder to flow in later speeches)

__ Performance Affs __

If your aff forces the neg to go for framework, I'm probably not the best judge for you. I'm not the person that just like hates project teams and think they ruin debate, but I'm honestly just not a good judge for judging long, complicated framework debates.

__ Theory __

Unlikely to get my ballot if there's one conditional advocacy. I'm good with two conditional advocacies, you can still definitely get my ballot if you debate it well. Going above two and the aff has my sympathy.

pre-round condo is not a thing.