Larsen,+Hex

Some of my preferences are still unknown to myself. If background information helps, I've defended arguments from all ends of the spectrum - 'performance', high theory k goo, politics DAs, etc.

You do you. I'll do my best to evaluate your arguments.

Please do not debate like you don't want to be debating. Persuade me. Communicate with me. Care about what you are arguing about.

Clarity. Clarity is important. A round is immensibly more fun to judge if I can hear evidence and then listen to explanations of evidence. Greater the explanation, the better. Impact out your link arguments. **Warrants. Empirics. Examples**.

Don't just do evidence comparison, do evidence take out. I strongly dislike affs with weak internal link chains and neg teams tend to grant aff's solvency without reading and poking holes in aff evidence. Explain why their own evidence takes out solvency.

**K Debate**

Yes, I will vote on affs that do not read a plan text. I also have 2N sympathy vs these affs. They need to do something. 2Ns need to restructure how I view these sorts of debates. How does aff solvency change without fiat? How is presumption implicated? How does your alternative function?__What do you need to win the debate and why?__ Answering these questions will put you in a much better position with these affirmatives. You need to have __DAs__ to the aff. You have to establish competition. These DAs can come in a multitudinous amount of ways. This could be a topicality argument.

A few things irk me in high school k debate:

Do not make arbitrary role of the ballot claims in front of me. ROBs should not be about voting for something you did first before the other team.

"They don't get perms, this is a method debate" is not an argument. I have no idea what that means. If arguments like this are explained, warranted and impacted out, I think that would be enjoyable. I have no default to perms in this sorts of debates.