Engel,+Joe

Debate Background: 4 years of debate in high school, one in college, and assistant coach at Gonzaga Prep High School. Don't judge me too harshly for any typos, I pounded this out pretty fast.

Generally, I'll default to a policymaking framework with a mainstream view of offense defense unless told otherwise. I might be a bit more willing than others to think there is zero risk of an advantage/disadvantage.

K’s- Personally, my debate style slants towards the "policy" end of things, but I will do my best to give all critical arguments a fair shake. I'll do the same for framework, however, so don't discount it. Additionally, while I'm fine with listening to the merits of whatever debate style you choose to embrace, answering all of the other teams arguments still needs to be done, and preferably you make it somewhat clear to me when you are doing so. The failure to do this introduces an amount of subjectivity into the decision beyond what I think should be present- the way judges evaluate debates should be relatively homogeneous. Don't feel like you suddenly have to break down the debate into the line-by-line, though- casual verbal indicators should be fine. My familiarity with your argument can be dodgy at times- some areas I know a decent bit about, others not so much. Assuming ignorance might be best. I generally prefer critical affirmatives to be germane to the topic in some form.

T- I learned debate in an area where T was a rather big deal, and it is underutilized as a strategy. If going for T, what will be most persuasive for me is providing a full view of what the topic will look like under your definition- preferably including a list of common cases that would be included/excluded. I'll default to competing interpretations, but can be persuaded by a strong reasonability argument. Standards like "framer's intent" or "intent to define" don't really mean a lot to me unless linked to Fairness/Education.

CP/Theory-

- A counterplan w/ 3 planks that can be individually severed are three conditional counterplans the affirmative can answer them as such. I don't have any pre-set cut off for what number of conditional arguments is okay- I think it varies round to round. - The solvency deficit needs to be "qualified" not so much "quantified"- Pegging percent of the aff the neg solves is impossible, and instead the solvency deficit should be described as specific advantages or solvency mechanisms the negative doesn't access. The impacts to those things then need to be weighed against the net benefit. - Friendly reminder to not speed through your theory blocks - Unless you put voters on them, theory is a reason to reject the argument. In order to reject the team (beyond conditionality bad), an articulation of how what the other team did changed your strategy in the round is required, unless you win the line by line on the theory very handily.