Zmyslo,+Alex

I debated for Juan Diego Catholic for 3 years in high school and currently attend gonzaga university
 * Background**

You can do whatever you want in front of me. I haven't judged your topic, but I am capable of reading google news and keep up with world affairs.
 * Update for 16-17 (USC/Notre Dame)**


 * SPEAK CLEARLY. I don't care how fast you go, just articulate.**

Theory debates are great when done properly. There are many debates where the neg will do something absurd, and theory is your only and potentially best way to win. I'm absolutely willing to vote on theory. Conditionality CAN be a voting issue, but you're going to have a hard time convincing me 1 conditional advocacy ruined your strategy/isn't inevitable. Two is still pushing, but when three or more are read it's always a good idea to put condo in the 2AC. What is most important in theory debates **__IS LINE BY__ __LINE__** __,__ ESPCIALLY in the rebuttals. You should be answering their individual standards.
 * Theory**

have a solvency advocate. multiple planks are fine and often something I enjoy. however, if you are going to read a counterplan that does all of the aff but does a condition/process/etc, you need to give me a reason why in the specific context of the aff your Counterplan is justified.
 * Counterplans**

Explaining how your link can interact with the affs internal links will really get you a long ways with me. Even though I went for the K rather often, I love politics debates on both sides. The 2NR/2AR __need__ to have good impact comparisons. Explaining why your impact turns theirs, or simply why the disad does/does not outweigh should be a meta level question that YOU spell out for me in the final rebuttals. Plain and simple, I don't want to intervene in debates.
 * Disads**

Probably the argument I have the least experience on. That being said, I have no problem and would actually enjoy a topicality debate. The word "education" is not an impact. You need to explain why topicality is a procedural issue.
 * Topicality (v. Policy affs)**

I love em
 * K's**

I have no problem with them
 * K affs**

I will always appreciate it if you engage the affirmatives literature. That being said, I know how hard it is to have a specific link to every aff. I went for the cap k pretty frequently, and I am willing to listen to these sorts of debates. However, if you aren't going to explain why your K is exclusive with the affirmative, you aren't going to win. orthodox marxism isn't a bad criticism, you make it bad when the only link card you read is "cap caused this!" In a perfect world, I would like to see debates where both sides engage each others literature.
 * K vs K affs**

I don't really like voting aff on the permutation. I think competing ontology/epistemologies/SUBSTANTIVE perm theory is a reason i shouldn't vote on the permutation

I'll vote on it
 * Framework v K affs**