Liu,+Eric

 Background: Debated at the national level for 4 years at Westwood High School in Austin, Texas as a 2N.

General: No coaching or judging experience on this topic. Open to any argument, and read a diversity of arguments while I debated. However, I was more on the policy side of things. I'm open to any argument, if explained clearly, because I can be a bit slow to grasp things sometimes. If an argument is particularly nuanced or novel, I might not immediately get it.

DA/CPs: Great. Read them a lot, often with big 1NC shells. Aff specific DAs are great too, but politics is always good.

Topicality: I was taught to emphasize on the limits impact, but again, that's a minor personal preference. If a good limits impact can be made, and applied to different responses, I will lean negative on T, even if there are smaller T issues the aff is winning.

Framework: I think about this much the same way as T, but I'll accept any framework without predisposition if it beats the other side's arguments.

Kritiks: I read them, and went for them regularly, but my kritiks were fairly vanilla, e.g. security or cap or aff-specific Ks. I read affs with kritikal advantages, but have no experience defending affs that had no plan text or defended concrete political option. No disposition against those affs, though.

Conditionality: Two conditional worlds seems very reasonable to me.