Little,+Matt

I debated for Rosemount High School in Minnesota and one year in college at UMKC. Generally, I like quality debates. I am open to hear any argument that may be sitting in your tub but you must be able to explain it. Your chances of winning in front of me will increase if you do more than read someone else's blocks.

Topicality

It's a voter that comes first. Reasonability is not an argument if you don't tell me WHY you are reasonable or how i should determine whether or not your case is reasonable. I think a good "we meet" is more convincing. I like FX and XT debates.

Disads

I love disads, especially when they link. I have a love for hegemony. This paired with why their case is a bad idea is still a great combo.

Kritiks

If your alternative is to reject the affirmative, you need to explain why that is different from upholding the status quo. Until told otherwise I will assume I can weigh the kritik against advantages.

Theory

Slow down on theory if you plan to go for it. I think most judges would appreciate that.

If you just read your block against their block with no analysis about what is happening within the specific round I will be unconvinced. Bad theory debate will hurt your speaker points before it wins you a round. That being said, if the negative has 4 different conditional positions I would hope to hear condo bad.

Specifications, solvency advocate, whole res, etc etc I will evaluate but view these as more of fantastic time skews.

CP

Has to be functionally competitive with a NB.