Hargan,+Bri

I debated for three and a half years at Millard South with Dana Christensen and Dylan Sutton for coaches, as a warning. I started off running kritiks that only increased in craziness in each progressive year and while I was given the rudimentary education in straight up policy, I ran it maybe five times. The most important part of a debate round for me is how the arguments are fleshed out. I believe that each intricate part needs to be explained, but it also needs to tie together both the aff and neg so there is no shadow of a doubt how they interact.

__General__ In order to vote for something, I need to hear it explained in no uncertain terms. All jargon should be explained when it gets first introduced. Similarly, I don't want to have to call for evidence at the end of the round. At the end of the round, I'm looking for an outstanding reason to vote. It is the jobs of both teams to develop these reasons and round them out by the final speeches. I prefer to vote on the arguments that are most prevalent in the round that apply to the other team in an effort to force clash for the entire round.

__Specifics__
 * Theory** : I enjoy a good theory debate, but it needs to include relevant reasons for me to care. I don't want to hear any whiny arguments about potential abuse, I want it to be clearly pointed out in the round with impacts that actually affect the debaters.


 * Topicality** : I have a much higher threshold for voting on T, as I believe there are normally far more important discussions to be had in the round. For any kritikal affs defending against topicality, I love a good kritik of topicality as long as it fits well with the argument. I am also far more likely to T out with good reasons.


 * Politcs/DAs/CPs** : Because of my heavy kritik background, I didn't get much practice running these arguments or listening to them being debated straight up. This does NOT mean I won't vote for them, it just means that I expect debaters to slow down and explain them to me more in depth. I will not vote just because it's there, I need a concrete reasons for why it's the argument I should be paying attention to more than the affirmatives.

Tip : Negative's running kritiks should almost always include alt solves case, k outweighs case, k turns case, root cause and an impact (normally a twist on value to life). If you can properly articulate these not only through the round, but especially in the 2NR, you are in a wonderful spot.
 * Kritikal Affs/Kritiks** : I have a much broader base with kritiks and enjoy hearing them. However, I expect kritik teams to weave a story that directly affects the other team's arguments instead of ignoring them. I don't take your links or impacts for granted, which means that if I don't hear them, I won't flow them.


 * Performance** : I'm perfectly okay with performance as long as it doesn't simply ignore the other team's argument.


 * Framework** : I value open debate and actively encourage kritiks and performances. This means that any limiting framework is far less likely to sway me, particularly if the only argument is that "it's unfair and it's killing debate". Honestly, I'll probably just laugh at you for trying. Instead, you need to flesh out your arguments as actual impacts and defend/compare the methodology to the other team's.

__Footnote__ With all that being taken into account, I suggest you run what you're most comfortable with. I lean heavily towards kritiks, but I also have a problem with poorly executed kritik debates. I'm willing to listen to anything and everything as long as it's relevant. And very importantly, have fun and try not to be total jerks to the other team. I want to enjoy or learn from the rounds, not watch people bickering for an hour and a half.