Zhang,+Jennifer

 I debated for four years for Desert Vista.

In general: clarity > speed explanation/warrants > quantity of cards/arguments organization > stream of consciousness/run-on sentences truly understood argument > random backfile

Specifically: T/theory/fw - just because everyone reads an aff doesn't mean it's topical; just because an aff is untopical doesn't mean it will always lose (and apply same idea to theory/fw) DA/CP - hopefully make sense and are not generic (though there is not much optimism so just explain them well) K - preferably ones actually known/understood such that they can be explained to one who is somewhat adverse to long, made-up words (define them!) and run-on sentences (and one who has only read Heidegger/Eurocentrism in much detail) K affs - should be tangentially related to the topic (and if they're not, hopefully have very, very good framework blocks because those can be persuasive and amusing)  I do not presume to be able to outline a perfect debate in the amount of space most people are willing to read in a wiki page, nor do I expect that a perfect debate would arise even if I did. I feel as though most wiki pages are just pleading for intelligent and strategic debates anyways.

Do ask for clarification if such pithy words are inadequate.