DiBenedetto,+Anthony

The number one thing I want to see in a round is engagement. All else is truly secondary.

So many debates involve two sides empathically defending positions irrespective of their opponent’s arguments, often ignoring the persuasiveness of the arguments and evidence in the 1AC and 1NC. The heart of debate is engaging your opponent, weighing your evidence warrants against warrants, describing the interaction of your arguments, both within a specific arg and as arguments interact with each other. . . like having a coherent, comprehensive negative strategy versus a shotgun approach.

I’ll vote on where you direct me (unless you don’t direct me or frankly are so clueless as to direct me in inane directions.) Dropped points are given 100% weight, silence is consent. T comes before K.

When it comes down to it, this is your round not mine. I’ll vote on what’s in the round, not in my head, or yours.

I love a good kritik. All actions are informed by underlying paradigms, whether obvious or not. I prefer my kritiks to have both a discursive and policy impact when applicable. We are policy debate after all. But fair warning, debate the k poorly or without commitment and it does weaken your position. These are complicated args and require explanation, time, and valid voting issues.
 * Kritiks:**

Go for it! Too often solid T arguments aren’t pursued often enough. Although I do stress the word “valid.” Be clear on your standards and warrants. They should be tailored to your T and the specific round.
 * T:**
 * Theory**:

I’ll vote on it but. . . Let’s keep it relevant, impacted, and relevant. That’s right, a generic 20 point bloc that you randomly extend points on will probably not be a round winner.