Rose,+Tori

So, to preface, my background: I debated at GBN for 3 years and spent my senior year primarily judging. I’m now a student at UT Austin and yada yada yada moving on.

//Quick summary: aff should be T (and ideally a legitimate policy option, define legitimate as you will), tech over truth, not super K friendly.//

Theory is great, I love theory. I also, however, love trolly CPs and DAs so if you have some sort of tricky policy argument I’d be happy to hear them. Even if it’s bullshit like ASPEC, that will just make me laugh and if the other team drops it it’s fair play for me (to be clear, if they answer ASPEC don't go for it, it's a shitty argument it's just I'll vote on that stuff if it's dropped).


 * CPs:** I love Cps, the weirder the better. Run 3 CPs for all I care, as long as you can defend theory I'm happy to let you do that. Just make sure a.) you have a net benefit (that is a problem I see way more than I should) b.) if you're also running a K, don't be too perf-cony.


 * Ks:** To be clear, I will vote for you if you destroy on the K, but in general I’m MUCH more receptive to policy arguments. If you are going to run the K though, it’s very important to me that you actually explain the kritik. I’m not super familiar with the literature and while I’m likely to understand more basic Ks, as a rule I won’t vote for arguments I find confusing so clarity is critical. This might seem unfair but even if the aff doesn’t answer it well, if I as the judge don’t know what the hell you’re talking about you might still lose. Ks like Cap or Heg bad I'm cool with (they're basically linear DAs anyways) but if you're a one of Wilderson team I'm not going to be a good judge for you.


 * K Affs:** if it's just K impacts and a framing contention about why great power war won't happen and why systemic impacts are preferable, you're fine. If it's full on no plan text do a critical history of bear poop to understand our space in the universe, please don't run it with me as your judge. I won't understand it, I won't be overly sympathetic, and I will give the negative leeway to destroy you. I really will say, //please// defend the resolution. If you don't we're coming at debate from two very different perspectives and we're going to have a problem.

Also I 'll stop the debate if you use racist/sexist/offensive language, I will tank your speaks, and you will lose. You can say it if it's in the context of an argument, but I won't listen to racist/sexist bullshit. I don't mean that in the extreme sense just in the way that targeted language isn't going to endear me to you.

__ **Things you can do to improve your points-** __ (I'm stealing this from one of my previous coaches Stephen Pipkin)

a. Number 2ac off case and 1nc on case d. Make fewer perms but justify them e. Don't speak into your computer
 * b. Slow down on analytics **
 * c. Slow down on tags and cites **