Davis,+Grace

Affiliations: HH Dow High School '10 Michigan State University (not debating)

A few things to note: 1. Your partner is your best asset. Whether you are winning or losing, you should still be nice to one another. Be assertive, but not mean in rounds.

2. If an argument is dropped, the fact that it has been dropped and the implications of the drop must be brought up in every speech. Don’t think that you can just bring up an argument in the 2NR and expect it to get full weight.

3. Every argument, including analytics, should have a claim, warrant, and implication.

4. On a final note, all of my opinions are just that, preference. If you argue and explain something well enough, there is a chance I will deviate from my paradigm.

Specific arguments: Case- Case defense is an important and under-utilized tool for the negative, and should be introduced early in the debate. Similarly, the affirmative should be sure to extend case impacts throughout the debate.

Kritiks- I have a high threshold for most kritiks, though I do find they bring an interesting alternative to the world of policy. I look for a specific link story and a well-explained alternative early in the round, not just the 2NR.

DA- Disadvantages are good. They however should have a specific link to the plan/affirmative. Generic links rarely ever get you anywhere. Every part of a DA should be covered. Be careful not to straight turn yourself or drop important theory arguments.

CP- I think that a well planned out counterplan can be the best negative option. However perms are also a good option for the affirmative. I do vote on counterplan theory but it must be thoroughly covered by the Aff for it to have weight in the round.

Topicality- On this topic, I have a high threshold for almost all topicalities, Definitions need to be well explained, as well as standards and voters. All parts of the T must be covered in every speech for it to have weight.

Theory- I believe that theory is only a reason to reject the argument not the team. If you are going to make the argument that the team should be rejected based solely on a theory argument, it should be explained using specific cases of in round abuse.

Personal preferences and other notes:
 * __Overviews__ are good. One should be given on every major argument in the rebuttals (with exception of the 1ar). Give a brief overview then go on to line by line. Underviews are not acceptable, specific impact calc can be done at the end of the speech, but underveiws make you sound like you are just rambling on to take up time, this will hurt your speaker points, it is better to just sit down.