Martellaro,+Jordan

I was an assistant coach for a few years and now. That being said, I've grown to appreciate articulate, diverse, and intelligent speakers. I love a good CP/DA debate (I never ran the K), but am open to anything you do well. Debate is a game, so have fun. That being said, do what you do best.

Topicality: My fall back is a competing interpretations framework. As a head coach I don't see a lot of debates on the topic so don't rely too much on community norms.

Disads: I prefer specificity instead of generics.

Counterplans: Again, I prefer a CP that is tailored to the aff. This means I would rather hear a CP from the literature/solvency advocate than a Consult NATO CP.

Kritiks: Not my preference but sometimes its the best option. Spend a lot of time on the framework and ALTERNATIVE debate. In my opinion, the difference between a good and a great K debater is their ability to be creative, funny, and accessible. Give me a few choice metaphors/analogies/etc. and I will enjoy the debate a lot more.

Theory: I loved going for theory when I debate and I will appreciate clever nuances instead of just reading your blocks. I default to an offense/defense mindset when evaluating theory, but I’m flexible.

Final Thoughts: I flow a lot. If you junk up the debate, I probably won't read evidence...prepare for intervention. I will vote on dropped voters. Don’t use all your speech and prep time if you don’t need it. Weigh impacts. If you want good speaks, be clever, strategic, and NICE.