Gillette,+Tyler

Basics. 1. Do not just shadow extend arguments. You need to be extending warrants and impacts not just authors and years. 2. I love impact turns 3. I am fine with however fast you want to go, but do not go faster than you can handle. If you are unclear I will yell clear once then i will just quit flowing, I will give non verbals if this happens so if I yell clear to your partner you should probably be watching me so you can warn them. Once you clear up and i can understand you i will flow again. 4. Don't be rude in CX or take over your partners CX. If you have to say something during your partners CX that is fine but let them talk too.

Disads- I am fine with any disads. I do not think that there is always a risk, the affirmative can win that a disad either does not link or that it is terminally non unique, and that makes the disad go away. With that said offense is still better and probably easy to win. Politics disads would be the only iffy ones in mys book, I have never heard any politics debater ever prove that the aff plan would have to be pushed by the president and i think a lot of the time the internal link level on a politics scenario is severely lacking. If you can debate politics well that is fine i will vote on it.

Counterplans- Totally ok. I usually err negative on cp theory, but there are some instance in which cps are probably bad (i.e. word pics). Conditionally is usually ok but the more conditional advocacies you read the more sympathetic I am to the aff. Consult cps are probably bad and probably not competitive.

T-Aren't really my thing. I will vote for T if you win it. I usually think reasonibility is a good way to view T. I am also fine with affs that are not topical if they can justify it.

Kritiks- I am fine with them just do not assume that I know as much about you literature as you do, I know a fair amount of K literature but not all. The advocacy of the K should be clear, this does not mean that there has to be a text. A good K will either solve or turn the aff if your k does not to one of those you are probably behind on it. You should have a clear articulated link to the aff just saying they do not do something is not a link, for example just because they do not break down capitalism does not mean they link to your cap k you should prove how they either increase or prop up the capitalist system. Framework is probably just as reason as to why i should weigh policy impacts against the criticism.

K affs- I am fine with whatever you want to do whether be a performance or anything else you can think of just make sure you can justify what you do and why it means you win. I do not think that an aff has to have a plan text. I am not a big fan of framework, I will vote on it if you you clearly win it just may be a little harder to get me to believe that an aff has to have a usfg than some people. There are many better things to say against performance or any other type of kritikal aff than framework. I am a way bigger fan of things that actually engage the aff than I am just saying they should be excluded.

Theory- Do not just blip through these args at top speed slow down on your blocks. Like all arguments theory should have clear link and impact. I generally view theory has a reason to reject the argument not the team but can be persuaded otherwise.

I think that covers just about everything, If you have any questions do not be afraid to ask.