Gizzarelli,+Josh

I debated for four years at Newburgh Free Academy. Graduated in 2006, and enjoyed moderate success. I'm a fan of debates that argue the role of the ballot and give me a clear lens for evaluating a debate. I will not read evidence and I try as hard as possible to not intervene. Speed is fine. Rolling clock (every second counts from the 1ac on), please flow all theory and framework on seperate flows for clarity purposes especially because these debates tend to get messy. Have fun and Good Luck!

Negative I also love topicality, theory, and kritik debates. I think that topicality is a gateway issue, and non-topical affirmatives have no role in the debate round. With that said I do believe it is important in both topicality and more importantly theory arguments to argue the in-round abuse that has occured and if you as the negative believe you've been abused in the round the role of the 2NR is simple, go just for these arguments and sit back down. As for Kritik's I will vote for an alternative, yes even reject the Affirmative or discourse solves. Crystalize and explain to me a clear link story and why the plan is a continuation of some flaw in our thinking process or normal way of doing things as policymakers.

Affirmative This is policy making your role is to win the framework debate and tell me why at the end of the debate I should vote to pick up your plan and the harms that will continue if I vote negative. It's important for you to not concede framework especially in those debates where there is an alternative such as consult c-p or kritik alternative. Don't forget to discuss, extend, and extrapolate on your case impacts. On topicality don't let the negative get away with potential abuse standards and make them prove clear in-round abuse if ground and limits are a standard.