Lind,+Brett

__** Under no circumstance can the affirmative defend topical action and expect to win my ballot. **__
 * __ PLAN, NO WIN, SOME POINTS. __**

Call me "Burntt", please. It's my given name, but every tab room is really bad at entering that.

I debated for 4 years at Rosemount High School in Minnesota. I debated for a year and a half in college at Concordia and debated for the University of Minnesota. I currently coach for Edina High School. I am willing to adapt to you and whatever you are most comfortable debating. I am fine with speed and will vote on theory. Do what you do best. If you're not cheating, you're not trying. You can do just about anything in front of me short of tag-teaming in Beacon.

If you need more than that:

**T:** This debate is all about limits. I think the team that wins best limits is probably ahead on this flow. This debate is also about comparisons. Make them and I will reward you with higher points. I am also willing to vote on reasonability, so make sure that you are impacting T well.

**DAs:** I like disads. I especially like disads with links. 8 minutes of a disad in the 2NC is usually devastating. Make sure you win reasons why the disad outweighs/accesses the case (whether that is with a CP or just bigger cards).

**Case:** Unless you are doing something weird, case should be in every 1NC, and most blocks. A negative block of case turns/takeouts coupled with a disad is devastating in my book.

**CPs:** I think counterplans are an essential part of any negative strategy that does not revolve around some other alternative (a K, performance, etc). While I think generic counterplans get boring, sometimes you just gotta roll with the executive order. The only counterplans you want to be careful with are word PICs that PIC out of words such as “the,” “should,” and/or words with capital letters. They were kinda funny the first time I heard them. That is about it.

**Ks:** I'm fine with whatever you choose to do, alt, or no. Just make sure you can explain how the alternative solves the links and how it can/doesn't need to solve for the case. If you want to win Ks of methodology/epistemology/representations/etc you need to win either why they come first, or why the affirmative case is somehow flawed or irrelevant in the context of your link story.

**Performance:** I'm all for it. Performance teams should make sure that I have an impact or a role for my ballot in the 2NR/ 2AR. Non-performance teams- win why your style of debate is superior in terms of inclusiveness/education, or why their project/performance/dance dance revolution is bad for the same reasons. While I like performance debate, I do not vote for the sake of performance itself.

**Kritikal affs:** I like them. However, do not assume that just because you read a biopower affirmative that: A. you do not link to disads. If you defend the outcome of the rez, you gotta defend those links. K aff or no. Or, B. you do not link to biopower. The same goes for any X author you read on the affirmative. Explain to me how the plan action can solve for your advantages, or how the role of the ballot changes in the context of your affirmative and your method.

**Framework:** Usually a useless debate. Neg gets their K alt, aff gets to weigh the advantages. A much better approach is to read your evidence about how the impacts of the other team don’t happen/are made up rather than rely on framework to do that work for you. I do understand that sometimes you just gotta close for framework, however, so don't be afraid to have this in the 2NR/2AR. This debate, much like topicality, is a question of impact comparison. Explain to me why limits/education/challenging the state/fairness are important and outweigh and you will win your interpretation in front of me.

tl;dr: Do what you gotta do to win. And as a side note: Black Phallus is 1-0 in front of me. I don't want you to read too much into that, I'm just sayin'. Peace homez