Kaas,+Matt

__**Background**__ A brief history about my debate career, I debated for Dexter High School frequently attending national tournament and reaching elimination rounds at most. Currently I'm debating for Michigan State University. So enough about me and onward to the stuff that you actually care about

__**Topicality**__ I'm fine with topicality debates. At the end of the day don't just read and repeat your blocks, but give meta-level comparison about how your interpretation is best for debate, and how that impacts fairness, education etc... and ultimately weigh the impact (ie Education outweighs fairness for XYZ). You have to prove in round abuse. I'll listen to K's of T, I do think that most of them are dumb, and aren't explained well enough or utilized correctly. If you're going for A-spec/ O-Spec or any other Spec argument, you're fighting an uphill battle.

I'm good with counterplans. I'm good with tricky counterplans and advantage counterplans; just make sure that you are able to debate questions of competition. Multiple plank counterplans are fine, if you are kicking planks individually it leaves you open for a compelling theoretical objection. I usually lean aff on questions of competition and perms are probably not as abusive as the neg makes them out to be. But I make up for it by leaning neg on theory questions (condo is probably good) but dont let it get carried away, anything more than two conditional advocacies is approaching the line of abusive. Consult/Condition counterplans are probably abusive and perms are more compelling, but if the neg wins the counterplan im not just going to vote aff
 * __Counterplans__**

Love em! I love a good politics disad debate, make sure you know what you're talking about! Both offensive and defensive arguments are good, 2ARs with just defensive better win a good chance of case, or a pretty major solvency deficit to the CP. Disad turns case are a must for the negative and are important for the affirmative to answer.
 * __Disads__**

Good case debates are very interesting to listen to, usually negatives get swept up in off-case arguments and the aff forgets they have a case and dont utilize it effectively. 2NRs that are a disad and case make for very good debates, but its not necessary
 * __Case__**

Okay so this is going to take some explaining, yes I was a K team in high school, we read a K aff and the K was usually 8 minutes of the 2nc, however the 2nr was usually DA/Case or DA/CP.... With that being said; I listen to the Kritik, and would say that I dont automatically default to being a policy maker, I will vote for who wins in my mind. I understand most Kritiks, if you're reading them make sure that you do too. So here's my further break down for how I evaluate the kritik With all that being said, it probably sounds more harsh for K teams than I actually am, just after being a K debater in high school, transformed into a politics debater in college I like having K's well developed and having an in-depth debate... dont think just cause you read a crazy K, that you are going to win... But in a nut-shell I will vote for the K, just do a good job
 * __Kritiks__**
 * Have specific links: Have good analysis (cards would be nice) on specific advantages dont just read generic links
 * Impact Work is a must, I think root cause arguments are a must when you are going for the kritik, ethics arguments acceptable, but i feel slightly inclined to believe that extinction (ie saving everyone) is probably pretty ethical
 * Alts: Make sure you can explain why your alternative can either solve for your kritik and/or solve for the affirmatives harm, specific analysis is nice... Additionally Floating PIKs are probably abusive, and its not exactly compelling for the 2nc to stand up and be like oh well our alt solves everything

__**Kritik/Non-Policy (Traditional) affirmatives**__ Like I mentioned above I read a Kritik aff in high school, frankly I thought it was a dumb argument (clearly star trek replicators are not real we cannot give the to people in poverty), but i understand the strategic value in reading a Kritik aff.... You need to convince me why policy debate is either screwed up or why your type of debate is good, and it might be a slight up-hill battle, as I love cutting politics updates, but I will listen and vote for your kritik aff

__**Just love debate, and it will overall help you**__
 * Be Nice
 * Be Clear--you can be as fast as you want as long as I can understand you, you'll get flowed
 * Dont steal prep time--Being paperless I understand that jumping speeches will not be counted towards prep-time
 * Make "connections"--Being coached by Will Repko, you need to emphasize your debate winning arguments GET LOUD GET PROUD
 * Most importantly, just have fun!