Bleyle,+Brittney

__**Debater** **at Binghamton University**__

I currently debate in the Open division. I have ran policy and critical arguments on both sides and am comfortable with both.

I will flow line by line unless instructed otherwise. I'm totally open to other forms of flowing though so if you feel like it would be beneficial for me to flow your arguments in a different manner let me know! I've heard teams ask the judge to flow straight down and I've also heard teams ask the judge to not flow their arguments at all.
 * Flow**

I love a good cross-ex (this can definitely have a positive effect on your speaker points). I will flow it sometimes if something sticks out to me or if someone tells me to flow it. It's probably binding.
 * Cross-Ex**

Go for it if you think you have a legitimate claim. You need to prove substantial in round abuse. I will assume that the impact to a theory argument is to reject the argument unless it is explicitly stated otherwise prior to the final rebuttals.
 * Theory**

I'll vote for it if you win it, but it's definitely not my favorite argument. If the aff can show that they are reasonably related to the topic then I think you should be able to engage them in some way.
 * Framework**

I love kritiks. This year I have been running a critical affirmative and one off kritik on the neg. This means though that I will hold you to a high standard when running these arguments. You should try to get specific links from their 1AC/2AC rather than or along with using generic linksAlso don't just expect me to "get" your new age specific spin on the cap K, you still have to explain and warrant out your argument
 * Kritiks/Critical Affs**

Go for it! Always good to explain why your performance gives you a unique advantage in the debate
 * Performance**

Definitely not my area of expertise but I'll vote for it. If you're going for it in your last speech make sure to spend most of your time on it to convince me it's so important that I should vote on it.
 * T:**

Case specific, functionally and textually competitive, with specific solvency advocates is what I would like to see when it comes to these. Consult counterplans aren't usually convincing.
 * Counterplans:**

Uniqueness is key here. Make sure you are winning that part of the argument and the rest will come much easier. Also, make sure you prove a clear defined link.
 * D/A**

I love a good case debate. I feel it goes underappreciated at times but I've seen many teams win on case arguments that went undercovered in the 1AR.
 * Case**

Mostly importantly of all, have fun and do what you do best! Be kind to each other, we are all in this activity together.
 * Conclusion**