Ghuman,+Pinky

I am comfortable with spread, but I want you to go slow on the tags and indicate when you are going on to the next card.

Make sure you are extending through important cards and arguments, so that I can look at them in the end of the round. I do not feel that teams show enough clash in the round. The more clash there is, the clearer it is for me to make a decision.

When I was a policy debater, I ran more kritikal arguments. My background is in k and non-traditional debate. However, I will vote for any argument or framework as long as you explain to me how to vote and look at the round. I will vote based on which framework wins. If there is no framework debate, I am more inclined to judge on K arguments.

Theory- If you go for theory, then really go for it and explain why I should vote on it. There is no theory argument I am against.

CPs- Explain the CP net benefit and do comparative analysis against the aff to show me why I should vote on the CP.

Kritiks- Ks come in all shapes and sizes. I am very open a variety of Ks. You can run multiple Ks or just one K, but make sure you really develop your arguments throughout the debate for me to vote on it in the 2nr.

Kritikal Affs- I am comfortable with k affs. Make sure you run it properly. You may have to drop arguments in order to win the round at larger. Make sure you look at the bigger picture and win the round.

Topicality- I like T debate. I also listen to K of T. The only offense that I can see for the aff is a K of T. If you want me to look at topicality before all other arguments in the round, then explain that in the voters.

Impact Calculus is really important to me. I need to know how to weigh advantages and disadvantages. Do not just say Nuke War=end of life. Tell me why end of life matters. I like fully explained impact calculus.