Nguyen,+Nancy

You need to win an argument and a reason why that argument means that I should vote for you. Feel free to choose whatever type of argument you prefer. Virtually everything in the round is up for debate in front of me. Do what you're good at. I may prefer to hear certain arguments over other ones, but I'd rather hear you doing what you do best even if the argument isn't one I particularly like. I did CX for four years in high school, but it's been a few years since then.

Speed: Speed is fine, just be clear and slow down on tags and authors. Go as fast as you feel comfortable risking me missing any cards.

Case: A coach once told me "if you don’t go on case I die a little bit on the inside."

DAs: Impact calculus and an overview are great, specific links are too.

Counter Plan: I know everyone knows this but just to make it clear, please have a net benefit. If your CP is just plan-plus then I doubt I will vote for it unless you pull out a theory argument why I should.

Kritik: Don’t assume that I have read and/or understood your author. This is generally a problem in K debates, where people assume that terms are packed with implicit meaning. If the argument isn’t in the text of the card, then you need to make sure that it is comprehensible in your analysis or explanation of the card. Also, remember that the evidence is not the argument by itself. I prefer quality of evidence to quantity. Explain your link story and alt story please, don’t assume anything.

Theory: I will not vote on a theory argument that takes less than ten seconds for you to read. You need to show real IN ROUND ABUSE and impact claim of the abuse.

T: While I understand reasonability in the context of stupid violations based off of the word “substantially” or others like that, I find it difficult to use as a frame in contexts about the core of the resolution. I think the best interpretations should be in the context of the resolutional terms, have an intent to define, and explicitly delineate what each term is and ideally what it isn’t. I tend to value more limiting interpretations, though I can be convinced otherwise if presented with a counterinterpretation also founded in the literature.

Framework: Bread and butter of K debate. Framework is important because I was taught that it is the set of mindsets and guidelines on which the judge should view and evaluate the round. Every good kritik should be accompanied by a framework. "The debate norm is policy action and weighing the body count of who is saved and who is dead." This is the framework I default to if no team brings up a different framework. As important as the technical line-by-line aspects of framework debates are, the explanation of your position on what debate should be, and the consequences to debate of a particular practice or position is just as important. If you want to debate about debate, then you need to articulate an impact statement about what debate should be. That being said, you should defend the debate practices that you feel most comfortable defending, and not worry about my views of debate practices.

General: Just don't be rude or unnecessarily aggressive in a mean-spirited way. Tag-team CX is fine, but be respectful to your partner and the other team. Prep time ends once you pull the flash drive from your laptop. If your tag is longer than the underlined warrant of your card, you are doing something wrong.