Wetsel,+Seth

I was a four year policy debater in high school but have been out of the country for several years. My speed and flowing capacity are not as fast as they used to be so taglines need to be clear and analysis can be fast but needs to be well understood. In high school I was a topicality and Impact calculus buff, those were the main ways that I won debate rounds. I like T but it has to be ran well. The neg must prove that their interpretation of the resolution is better for debate and they must impact it out. The argument we are "reasonably topical" isn't a valid argument for the aff, you either are or are not and it is not up to me to decide if you are being reasonable. Theory is not a huge voter for me unless there is some huge abuse, however even so it usually is not a reason for the other team to lose the round in my opinion. DA's with good link stories and that are explained well are some of my favorite arguments. I was NOT a Kritik debater in high school and they are not my forte. I am not a fan of generic Kritik's. If you decide to run one then it MUST be explained well and you need to have enough analysis for it to be a voter. I need to know why it impacts me, the round, the debate community and how I should think differently from walking out of this round. Going for a Kritik with me is an uphill battle, but I have voted for teams on the Kritik in the 2NR, but not very many. I weigh the framework debate heavily and view it as one of the aff's only defenses against the Kritik, because of this I usually sway aff on framework.