Tunick,+Rachel

=Background= Member, [|Debate Team], [|Harriet L. Wilkes Honors College], [|Florida Atlantic University] =L-D Debate Philosophy=
 * Speed: I can keep up with most spreading, but I will yell, "Clear!" as necessary.
 * Flowing: I should be fine.
 * Topicality: I will accept topicality arguments only if there's (1) clear abuse established and (2) it's presented as a clear RFD in the NR.
 * Kritiks: I hate kritiks. Please don't run them.
 * Off-Case/Disadvantages: These are fine only if they are presented clearly and are related directly to the topic and/or AFF case; I will not necessarily accept them as //prima facie// voters.
 * Rebuttals: The NR and 2AR need to have clearly delineated voting issues.
 * Jargon: I do not have an extensive background in L-D Debate. Please avoid using jargon in your case; or, if you //do// use jargon, please explain it to me clearly.
 * Criteria: **__Framework.__**
 * The AFF needs to present a case with (1) clear definitions of the terms in the resolution; (2) a value and value criterion; and, (3) contentions which demonstrate how affirming the resolution meets the criterion and thus advances the value. The NEG may attack one or all of these, but need only win one in order to win the round.
 * If the NEG proposes a counter-value, then it ought to show why that value (1) is superior to the AFF's value, and (2) better encapsulates the debate. If it does so, then the NEG wins.