Manella,+David

David Manella – Pine Crest School I was a senior at Pine Crest School in Florida, but am now a freshman at Harvard. Ok, but back to the matter at hand: I have debated for five years. Theory: I tend to default to theory as a reason to reject the CP rather than the team. Reasons to reject the team have to be well articulated. If the work is done, theory arguments can be voting issues. Topicality: Either side must impact T well. I prefer violations that are tailored specifically for the aff. DA's: I am a big fan of these. Make sure you to do a good impact calculus, comparing your impacts to those of the other team. Counterplans: I prefer a counterplan and DA strategy over a kritik, but will vote for either. Competition for counterplans should be up for debate, as well as what counterplans can fiat. Kritiks: I am fine judging kritiks but would prefer a more conventional policy strategy. If you are going to go for a kritik in front of me, make sure to explain your argument well, I am not extremely familiar with kritikal theory. I think the aff should be able to weigh impacts of the plan against those of the kritik. Critical affs – I'm not the best judge for affirmative teams that don’t read a plan. That being said, I will vote for Ks of DAs and debates over how impacts should be weighed.