Nam.+Andrew

Experience: I debated for Oxford Academy for 4 years in high school, primarily in LD and Parli.

Framework: I prefer to have a clear framework and will follow the framework set by the debaters, but when none are offered, I default to net benefits. I believe that framework especially important when it's not simply net benefits, so I would spend more time on this.

Counterplans/Disadvantages: I like counterplans more than just DA's because it offers a specific plan of action and solvency from the negation. I think PIC's are fine as long as the difference is clear and significant (consult x is the opposite of this). I also don't like politics disads.

Topicality/Theory: I enjoy pre-fiat debates and will vote on Topicality, Theory, and whatever else a-priori arguments you make. Even if it's on something as mundane as ASpec, I will vote on it if the neg can convince me that the impacts are significant. Avoid dropping T and theory since I will vote on it if aff drops and neg extends. I will vote on RVI if-and-only-if the abuse is clear and significant.

Kritiks: I believe Kritiks are interesting points of discussion and serve as valid points of argumentation. That being said, your case better have some form of solvency for me to vote on it.

Speed: I'm fine with speed as long as I can catch your taglines, the key warrants, and the impacts. I understand that speed is necessary to get through your cards, but don't expect me to catch every word of it. If you want to speak fast, be clear.

Speaker Points: Given how dense cases can be, as long as I can follow your AC/NC, I will primarily focus on your cross-examination and your last rebuttal speeches. I believe that being able to cross-examine and answer to questions effectively and confidently is the best indication of your presentation skills as a debater. As for your last rebuttal speech, this is the best evaluation of your presentation skills as a persuader. I also value civility.