Grant+Agbefe

I hope this works.. this isn't my actual first name. this is the one I prefer to go by. If I'm on your schematic my first name might start with an M

I debated for Morgan Park High School in Chicago, Illinois for 3 years. When I graduated I debated a year and a half of parliamentary debate while being one of the assistant coach of policy of debate at Mankato West High School in South Central Minnesota. I currently debate for Baylor University. Yes.. I get around a lot.

I say this to let you know I'm familiar with a lot of styles.

I'm definitely a flow judge. I won't make arguments for you. I will do what you tell me. I call for cards after the round sometimes but I shouldn't have to. We use evidence for a reason it's your duty to explain why a card says x or y. I won't make arguments for you. I will write down what you say.

Arguments

Criticism

I'm down with the K. I ran it sometimes in High School and in on this year's nuclear topic. It was never like a one off thing always part of a bigger overarching strategy. That being said. If you're running some crazy off the wall K that's fine, just make sure you explain it and don't expect me to understand it. I'm probably not the best judge however for you to be running 4 Criticisms in front of.

Framework  These type of debates are central on some topics and I understand that. Please don't resort to reading your 20 page block on why Framework is bad. What I do want to see is clash and in-depth analysis of why policy should be preferred to the critical of what have you. Debating is more than spreading articulate a clear view point.

Topicality

I default in a competing I framework of Topicality. If someone argues otherwise I'll view the round in reasonability. The affirmative has to prove that their topical it's prima facie issue. On the riverside of the issue I don't believe the negative should run T if the Affirmative is clearly topical under a certain Interpretation. The spec args are fine

DAs

I love a nice unique politics, disad or a tradeoff.. Whatever just don't run disads that aren't complete with no internal links or non-unique. I'm all about the link. link debates aren't being argued like they should. And it's sad. Evidence is highly important to me in Disads. Articulate the warrants give me analysis, tell me a story

Counter-plans

They're too legit. Agent, pics. One thing about the PICs though they shouldn't be anything stupid like use a dollar less. PICs that pic out of a country or part of a bigger policy are fine.

1. Run what arguments you want. I hated when I debated at NFLS and had to cater to some judges caveat. Not so fast. No wipe out or spark please. I've never judge arguments but they're not really that persuasive. Other than that run what you wish. 2. Have fun. I realize debate is important but don't lose your peace of mind over it and don't go getting all upset. 3. Be nice to your partner. I hate it when one partner is a giant douche. 4. Don't still prep time or evidence.