Boettner,+Eric

I am currently a senior at CKM Mclatchy High School, I have been in policy debate for three years and would consider myself open to a lot of different forms of debate. I have been fairly successful in high school and would consider myself experienced enough for any debate. If you have any questions my email is boettner.eric@gmail.com. I want to be on your email chain but i don't read speech docs until the end of the round so don't scramble cards or make your files cryptic to hurt the other team, because that will just make it harder for me to evaluate any contentious evidence. Specifics

Topicality - I actually love a well developed T debate. I don't automatically default to reasonability or competing interpretations and will evaluate the debate based on the arguments you make. That being said, if your gonna go for T you need to make it clear that their model of debate links directly to an impact. Clash, Ground and Limits ARE NOT impacts, they are internal links and you need to clearly link them to education to be able to garner any sort of a tangible impact. I will vote on any T violation, as long as the debating is their to defend it, answer a counter interoperation and do impact calculus and not internal link work. I do think you need both a Topical Version of their aff (if it relates to surveillance) and/or a really good case list in close debates between interpretations.

Framework - As someone who read a K aff the last two years i have a lot of experience in these debates. However i would say i don't have the normal "K kid" bias against framework. If you run it correctly and win the argument i will vote for you. That being said you cannot ignore a counter interpretation "Because it is stupid" or ignore their offense because "its k gibberish". If you go for T version of their off engage the thesis of their argument and attempt to explain how your interpretation can solve their impacts and their specific pieces of offense on framework, don't just yell a plan text. Framework debates should be strongly developed in the block and the 2nr should be very good on the impact level and answering potential 2ar arguments. Also please try to do a good case debate, sometimes your best offense will be generated on the case for both sides.

K Affs - You do you. I really like seeing new and weird affs and don't have any objections.

Ks - Again i don't mind what you run, just understand it well enough to contextualize links. I don't believe in "you don't get ks" framework but you obviously have to debate it. Aff teams should fight back in the link debate and have good offense on the alt to win a Perm. Neg teams should be very good on links and win the alt as well as specific offense on the Perm.

Policy - You do you as well. I can spread and flow pretty fast so if i tell you to clear, your speaking badly/need to just annunciate more not slow down. A good disad debate makes me very happy and as much as i hate bad internal link chains I'm a sucker for the politics DA or a cheeky CP.

CP Have a net benefit. Otherwise just debate it

Theory I really will vote for tech here. Regardless of the argument you have to do the same basic things as Topicality, no i won't vote to reject the team in most instances i.e. severance perms, but i won't evaluate arguments with dropped theory and will reject the team when the other team does good impact work on a legitimate theoretical issue (condo, cp theory, etc)