Tenjarla,+Aneal

I debated at Westwood High School and have coached there for the last two years.

Topicality/Theory: Make sure to impact your standards in order to prove why a particular aff is unfair or uneducational for this topic. In later speeches, the depth of analysis on the framework of standards (competing interpretations) and/or explanation which standards create a better debate needs to be significant.

Counterplans: Explain the CP function and how it differs from the affirmative. This is basic but not always clearly articulated. Also give warrants to why your DAs are net benefits. . The aff should be arguing why the solvency deficit to the cp is too much to vote for it, why the DA isn't a net benefit, and/or why the perm captures the net benefit.

DAs: On the Uniqueness level compare evidence and tell my why you control the direction. Especially on elections, comparative arguments on uniqueness evidence is necessary. On the link level, you should talk about the case. This usually results in higher speaker points. Start impact analysis early.

Kritiks: I'm not the best judge to run the K in front of and will probably vote aff when I can't understand what the alternative is. Aff: Well articulated perms are very persuasive with me, tell me how they avoid the links.