Brass,+Oliver

I think that the affirmative should do something and have an interpretation that gives both sides equal opportunity to win based on pre round preparation and in round execution. I think negatives should respond to the affirmative and tell me why they are wrong. K- I probably haven't read the literature base but I have done debate long enough to see most K's. I think an aff's best opportunity for offense is the alternative and generally find rejection alt's to be unpersuasive, the negative needs to go a step further and say what I'm rejecting in favor of and how that occurs from my ballot. Theory- For me to vote on it I think the argument must be made coherently originally (Link, warrant, impact) then expanded upon and developed by later speeches. Half sentence theory arg that are shadow extended won't cut it. Conditionality is probably fine to an extent but can be done abusively. I generally don't think perf con is a reason to reject the team rather an excuse for the aff to go wild on the perm debate. Agent CP's are okay. Delay/Consult /Review cp's I'm less a fan of but have run/voted for them. DA's- yes please, politics, tradeoff etc. I like them. Case- Case debate is under utalized and a good block can really do some damage by investing time here.