Lastovica,+Kyle

Im in my 4th year debating at George Mason University

I am open to any argument and have no restrictions i.e. do what you are good at.

Caveat- I have done little HS topic research aside form working at camp, so make sure you explain and particular nuances such as the T debate or CP competition, or something particularly topic jargon heavy.

General Argumentation and Presentation: Warrants- claims do not equate to arguments, so don't waist your time unless the arguments is well developed and can answer the question what impact does this have on the debate, could i win on this argument, if not why are you making it Framing issues- these are great and determine how i should evaluate certain arguments- such as Link before unique, Mag over timeframe, etc. Cross X- This is a generally misused period, an effective cross x can destroy arguments and should be used for links and answers can be brought into speeches Clarity- this does not mean don't go fast, but only insofar as your are clear. Clarity and ethos moments can be much more effective than sloppily stuttering through two more arguments Depth- I am much more a fan of depth- so a neg block breaking down to a core consistent strat and spreading out the other team vertically rather than poorly extending as many things as they can, this comes the same with 1ar strat, you ought to break down to core 2ac answers and read more cards on those issues rather than shadow extend everything Funny wins- this can really help speaker points, and who doesn't want to make this activity fun.

Policy Stuff: T- T would be a solid choice as I slant heavily toward competing interpretations though can be persuaded otherwise. Block extensions must include a case list of your interpretation and list the crazy aff's they justify. Impact work is very important, the word limits is not an argument. Just as a DA impact interaction is very important, why does limits outweigh aff creativity and vise versa.

DA- diasds are also great- I enjoy a good DA case debate- Impact overview, framing, and turns case args in a overview are helpful, and aff you have to answer them.

CP- these are fine as well. The neg needs to clearly establish competition and net benefits. I am fine with any type and probably have the same concerns with some other sketchier types such as consult or conditions, but can be convinced otherwise.

Case debates- i.e. the sweet spot- we say a lot of crazy scenarios in debate so defeating them with logic is a good go to, smart analytical augments are awesome. Presumption, its a thing and you can win it, global solvency take outs are sweet.

Theory- I would start form the presumption that conditionality is good, but can easily be convinced otherwise, such as in the case of contradictions. My feelings are similar to T. There need to be clear interpretation with net benefits and impact comparison. Reject the arg and not the team is prob true with any non condo arg but could be convinced otherwise.

K stuff: While my normal inclination is a policy maker, nothing is going to be rejected out of hand. Ill say the same thing everyone else does I probably have not read your literature base so explanation is necessary. Historical and current events examples are really helpful in theory application.

Framework- this is a good option for the neg. Advocacies should have some relation to the topic. This is my own initial bias but I vote on the flow, so the team with the better arguments wins not the one in most accord with my ideology. Aff's just characterize you answers clearly, most likely you will not win the we meet debate so the options are impact turns. Just like in a policy impact turn debate make sure you have impact defense to their offense i.e fairness and decision-making.