Heaton,+Micah

__**Debate is a game. "Strict" adherence by affirmatives to the resolution is not essential.**__ __**Frame the round as needed for your argument to have a functional relationship with the ballot.**__

__**All "rules" are up for grabs EXCEPT speech times and speaker positions.**__

__**I MAY CALL FOR CONTESTED EVIDENCE**__

Predicating logic arguments are nice to have in addition to explanations for pre/post fiat.

Topicality is fairly boring, but necessary. Make it quick and painless in the end.

Impact turns to both Topicality and Framework (either side) are **underused and entirely winnable** positions.


 * Offense/Defense** - Intelligent grouping of arguments makes for better answers/better flows/ better debates.

Strategic teams know and concede their deficit (generally you ARE losing somewhere on the flow) and move on to weigh winning offense.

Cloak and Dagger is fantastic. If your competition is not listening, feel free to punish them.


 * ...some admonition...**

Use your prep time.

-**K debates-**

- be mindful of advocacy.

- alternatives should not contradict Topicality/Framework violations unless otherwise explained.

- argumentative performance/style should be consistent with the centerpiece of your criticism

- bad K debate is obnoxious debate.

- clear lines of offense and cleanly extended voters win.

-**Straight up debates**-

- Savvy and efficient line by line manipulation is fine. If you are quick for the sake of exploring your argument, take the reigns. If not, slow down and think it through.

-I find it amusing to hear the words "real world" so often, as if implications for the present round are something besides "real".