Park,+Daniel


 * Short version:** I debated policy and LD at Lynbrook for 4 years and am currently debating NPDA parli at UCLA. The best thing in debate for me was to have a critic with an open mind and the ability to listen to anything. I'll try to be this critic and always make my rfd based on how you tell me to frame the round provided that it's not morally reprehensible.


 * Specifics:**

__T__ I'm a huge fan of good T debates but please signpost well and slow down from your top speed.

__Theory__ I don't believe that all theory arguments should have separate shells but at least have an interpretation and articulate voters for me to evaluate them.

__CP/DA__ I often went for agent cp/ptx as the 2N and strongly believe that counterplan+disad strategy is one of the best answers to the affirmative. If you're reading politics, make sure to win the uniqueness debate and have good evidence.

__K__ Ask me about specific K lit before the round but I'm fairly well-versed in postmodernism, critical race theory, and statism. I have read a lot of Nietzsche, Camus, Giroux, Foucault, and bell Hooks but as for all authors, please warrant your arguments and focus on articulating how the alternative functions in relation to the affirmative. The K should interact with the case at a substantive level by turning some of the internal links. Also, most K debates come down to the perm so win and use the framework debate to your advantage.

__Performance__ I read a lot of micropolitics in high school as well as college and believe that performance is genuinely improving our community. Please read it to further a cause, not to get a cheap shot at my ballot. I will give any clearly "fake" teams low speaks (not necessarily a loss) to deter them from running half-hearted projects that taint the general reputation of sincere teams.