Marso,+Heath

A few general things:

I believe the critique/ policy divide is arbitrary. Despite what some may think, you should run whatever you feel comfortable in front of me. The more comfortable you are, the better debating you will do. Debate is a game, plain and simple.

That being said, everything you say should meet the basic parts of an argument--a claim, a warrant and impact.

Specifics:

Case Debate: Its good, and I like to hear it. Well deployed case debate is always fun to hear.

Theory: Theory debates have been approached trivially as of late. People just don't invest enough time in them. If you want me to consider a theoretical issue at the end of the round, then you need do the work to develop it. I won't vote on "cheap shots." For affirmatives- if the negative's theory arg is underdeveloped, "reject arg, not the team" is very persuasive.

Topicality: Its about competing interpretations. T is never a reverse voting issue. All aff's should relate in someway to the resolution. Even critical aff's should either affirm the resolution or, at very least, be consistent with it. Make sure that your standards are well reasoned--they are the impact of the argument, as it were. Also, voting issue one liners are not persuasive. If you want me to vote on 'jurisdiction' then you need an impact to why this should be how I evaluate the round.

Framework: I don't see this as a round winner, but instead as a way to evaluate the round. There should be substantial arguments and/or evidence on any side of a framework debate for it to develop properly.

Disadvantages: Make sure that you're explicit on how you want the disad evaluated and /or how it interacts with the case. Make sure your disad tells a coherent story. Most disadvantages are lacking in any internal link story, or specific link to the plan action. Also, better speaker points will be awarded to those who do better impact analysis at the round. Telling me your impact again is not enough. Does the disad short- circuit solvency? Does it turn the case? Explain.

Counterplans: They are good, and a any effective 1NC must have one.As far as theoretical objections go- conditionality is probably good, consult counterplans are shady. Just be willing to stand your ground and be ready to defend your claims and you'll be fine in front of me -- see the notes on theory above. I appreciate a good cp/ da debate.

Criticisms: While these are what I am most familiar with, it doesn't mean that you should sacrifice the quality of the debate for the sake of running one. All this being said, its important to have options, and accordingly usually finds a place in most 1NC's...if you are not comfortable, than don't run one. I would much rather watch a good politics/cp debate than a messy critique debate. I am pretty confident in my knowledge of this literature base because I've been doing more critical debate than policy debate over the past four years, and had extensive scholarly engagement in this field. T Although I think a critique debate should look similar to a da/cp debate (that is, there should be a structure to them) if your thing is a more fluid approach, I'm fine with that. Just make sure to tell your story and lock down on framework.

This is hardly extensive. Like I said- just do your thing. Feel free to ask questions.