Ghani,+Hamza

I did LD for two years, qualifying for TFA state both years,but have been debating for three. I debated on the Austin circuit and the national circuit my senior year.

Theory: You can run theory for strategic purposes or check against actual abuse,I don't have preference of one over the other as long as there is a violation, you can run theory. Meta theory is also fine, as well as nontraditional approaches to theory arguments, as long as you explain the argument. I don't think it makes any sense when people say competing interps and then say no RVIs along with that, I'm more inclined to think that competing interps assumes an RVI, but this doesn't mean you can't make these arguments. Tell me how to evaluate theory, drop the debater or argument, competing interps or reasonability, why does theory come first. You can make up voters if you want, just warrant arguments. T is fine.

Kritiks: These are fine just tell me if the K is post or pre-fiat and how it functions in the round.

Policy arguments: Make sure the link story is clear, and when you extend the arguments that you actually extend.

Truth-Testing vs. comparative worlds: Both are fine,

Value/Criterion: I don't really see the point of values, but standards will make the round easier to evaluate. Framework/framing: I think there should be some type of framework in the round, otherwise there is no criteria to evaluate the debaters on. This can be ethical theories or even only look to a truth testing paradigm, or a burden something frame the round

Speed: I'm okay with speed, just slow down on tags and author names

When you extend make sure you do claim warrant and impact, the better the extensions the easier to evaluate the round.

You are welcome to ask questions before the round if you need to!