Bandarage,+Dineth

I debated for Lexington for 4 years as a 2A.

Be nice. There is a fine line between showing you are smart and know a lot about an issue and being a ‘not nice’ person. This includes being nice to your partner. Do not scream or yell at them, policy debate involves two people. Debate is a game. Don’t cheat by clipping cards, writing your own cards, take sections out of cards which go the other way.

I like impact calc, it makes judging easier and makes me have to intervene less. I am not a strict offense/defense judge and will vote on terminal defense if you debate the issue well and win it.

Speed is fine as long as you are clear though you probably want to slow down on theory / topicality.

Topicality – I default to competing interpretations unless you say otherwise. Impact your arguments and try to get examples of in round abuse. I think OSPEC and RVIs are not winners and simply wastes speech time where you could be doing something more useful in the debate. *as said above don’t go blazing fast on T and be clear.

Disads - I like straight up DA / case or da/cp debates as I find them fun to watch / judge. I also really like the politics disad. The link probably controls the direction of the uniqueness, but you can convey me otherwise in the round. Do comparative impact calc it’s a good thing. Politics - great disad. theory arguments here can go either way it just depends on how you debate / impact it

CPs – I think counterplan theory can go either way and mainly depends on how you impact your theory arguments. Being a 2a I may be slightly aff biased, but most of the time this is only a reason to reject the cp not the team unless specified otherwise. I really like aff specific PICs (not generic) it shows hard work.

K’s – I’ll be honest I don’t like the K too much. I’ll understand the generic K’s like security, cap, nuclear reps, fem etc. but if you are going to do some crazy k lit I may have a vague idea of what you are saying, but you will have to do a lot of in round explanation. However, I would prefer a specific K to the aff or specific links to the aff if you do read a k. K teams win with their ‘k bombs’ and if you make them clear in the 2nc and they drop them / mess it up in the 1ar don’t hesitate to go for it in the 2nr.

Theory – be clear /slow down – tagging your theory arguments is nice. The key thing here is to make sure you impact it in the round especially if it is in the 2ar/2nr. don’t re-read your blocks in later speeches answer their arguments if you want it to be a viable option. I don’t like voting for sketchy theory arguments that were blips in the 2ac or 2nc etc. Conditionality is a tossup if the neg reads more than 1 conditional advocacy.

Performance – I think that the aff needs to relate to the topic in some way and preferably has a plan. I think framework is a persuasive argument against these types of affs/negs so I may not be the best judge for you.

2NRs Ranked in Order:

 1) Politics /case 2) Politics / (aff specific cp) 3) da / case 4) da/ (aff specific cp)  5) cp with internal net benefit 6) T 7) K (read the K section though) 8) Everything else

Other – Good Jokes -> more speaks Do evidence comparison. Especially where two pieces of evidence say the exact opposite thing, EX: Uniqueness debate on politics. If you are paperless the prep time stops when your flash drive is out of your computer. Clicking the save speech to flash drive/desktop button takes around a second and prevents you from stealing prep. I don’t think: "counterinterp: only our case is topical" is an argument.

Debate is a game. Have fun!