Loftus,+Andrew

Feel free to read whatever in front of me. Don't be shady or shifty about what you are defending if the other team asks you - be respectful to each other.

Aff - I am comfortable with policy or K affs. If you read a K aff, I probably won't be the most qualified and well-read on your subject of choice, so be sure to explain the meaning of the Aff clearly.

T - If you love T, go for it. I find reasonability to be a convincing argument if the Affirmative is close to meeting the Neg's interp.

K - Explain the alternative. I appreciate in-depth characterization of the Aff in context of links to the K. Security Ks are cool and I'll vote on framework if enough work is done by the neg on why FW is a reason to reject the Aff.

CP - You can go for any CP in front of me - cheat CPs are fine. Probably don't make planks individually conditional in front of me - kick all or none. I really think adv CP + impact turns are not used enough. If you are Aff, solvency deficits > theory.

DAs - Make sure you have a strong link and have good impact calc in comparison to the Aff.

Theory - I really enjoy judging theory, just don't spread through your theory blocks. Make sure to impact out

Case - I like link/impact turn debates. Feel free to call out b.s internal links in an Aff.