Smalley,+Megan

Topicality- I love T. Topicality is one of my favorite arguments. However, a lot of teams do things with topicality in which I don't think is strategic. To win T, you must win the interpretation, standards, and voters. Often, a team will focus on one section of T and try to win the argument. Similarly to winning the UQ on a da, it's not enough alone. If you want to go for T, go for T. Framework- framework debates are fine, but winning framework doesn't mean you win the debate either. Framework, for me, just means I should judge the impacts in a specific way. If there is a ROB please extend it throughout the debate. Nothing is worse than having a team present one then not talk about it again until the 2AR/2NR. K- k's are fine, but please be clear on terminology. There are several instances when a team will use a term that doesn't mean what they think it means. Reading philosophy is cool, understanding the philosophy wins debates. Da- I'm not sure why any judge would have issues with Da's. Just try not to have an exorbitant amount of them in the round. I'm not a huge fan of politics, but if politics is your thing don't let this scare you away from it. Cp- Cp's are fine. If you can solve the aff better by all means do it. General housekeeping: open cx is cool, speed is okay (unless there is a differently abled person who specifically needs it slower, in which case you WILL adapt to be inclusive) I will say "clear" if I can't understand you, and I will not be responsible for time keeping. Please don't shake my hand, I hate germs.