Wolf,+Jack

Jack Wolf Loyola University Chicago Parli Debate

Speed is fine as long as you speak clearly. Also, be sure to make it obvious when you are moving on to a new argument so that the flow is clean. If I miss something because you have poor organization, that is your fault. When running topicality you must do enough work to prove how the aff is not topical to/affirming the resolution and how that hurts you as the neg. It is most convincing to prove abuse or lost ground. I don’t like non-topical affs, but I will vote for them if the neg’s T is not strong enough. I will grant that the aff is topical until you prove to me that it is not. If you run good T I am very compelled to vote for it. That being said, do not run T for the sake of running it. If the aff is clearly topical, spend your time on other arguments.

I analyze theory through competing interpretations. Explain why your interpretation is superior and why it follows from your interpretation that I vote for you.

I have no objections to Ks. If it is done well I would love to vote for it, but sometimes you are better off not running critical arguments if the link between case and the K is not clear. I can completely agree with your K, but if the case doesn’t link to it, there is no reason for me to reject the aff. Be creative, but make sure you explain yourself.

The same goes for DAs. Make sure you have a good link story. I really don’t care what your impacts are if you don't tell me how the aff causes the impacts.

If you run a counterplan, I need you to either prove that it is mutually exclusive from the aff plan, or prove why the CP solves better than plan (basically mutual exclusivity or net benefits). This is pretty basic, but bad CPs annoy me so I like to reiterate that.

If there’s anything else, just ask.