Estrada,+Alex

Wake Forest 2019, Austin SFA 2015 Yes I want to be on the email chain: alex.nhd@gmail.com

Tech > Truth Run whatever you want: I'll do my best to adapt to you, even if it's contrary to my own debating style. "Crush the weak, and slime the strong"
 * Nothing said here is a maxim; only friendly reminders**

T - Should be argued like a DA, with uniqueness, a link, an internal link, and an impact. I like good T debates, and I think it's a necessary tool against random and contrived affirmatives. I like plantexts, but I also like caviar. I like a lot of things. I like framework 2Ns that stress why debating policy is good for the affs literature base (e.g d-making), but i could be persuaded that a lack of topic stasis feeds an aff side bias.

DAs - Link probably controls the direction of uniqueness. As thus, comparing impacts/link turns should probably start earlier than the closing rebuttals. I like the politics DA. I expect case, just as i expect the sun to rise.

CPs - I will look to the veracity of the solvency advocate to determine a large portion of the theory debate.The purpose of a counterplan is to prove that the inclusion of the plan precludes the optimal policy decision. This can be done by proving the CP is mutually exclusive (ban the plan), or through a net benefit. For me, if the negative wins the the CP solves 100% of the case, it would be very difficult to vote aff, given a risk of a net benefit. Theory should be the B strat: not bad, but you could do better.
 * The negative should probably get two counterplans
 * Generic process/condition CPs are good if they engage the aff's literature, otherwise (insert theory)
 * Counterplans that PIC out of a single word are also probably going to will lose on theory

Ks - Debate is the wild west, and anything goes. Kritiks I like: tech thought k, environment reps k, security k, neocon k (war on terror good, hegemony good the dirtier the better). Good 2Ns don't forget the aff, and read specific evidence that turns the case. If you want to kick the alternative, you better be winning the framework debate. I think K tricks are funny, and if you win 'em, I'll vote for 'em.