Husic,+Doug

Rising sophomore debater at Wayne State University Assistant coach at West Bloomfield High School Michigan the Tldr of my philosophy is; you do you. I'll adapt and vote on arguments whether they be your favorite K or your hyper generic politics DA. Counterplans: I like em, plan specific pics tend to be my favorite. If the CP has the ability to result in the entirety of the aff it is probably abusive. DAs: read them, more specific the better. K's: these are some of my favorite arguments. I'm pretty well versed in a lot of critical literature, specifically in various lit bases of anti-capitalism, nietzsche, critical race theory, post-humanism, queer theory and gender studies. Feel free to ask pre round how well versed I am in a specific author or type of argument. I believe you should attempt to have a pretty specific link to the aff's plan or the reps they use. No predispotion to vote against the K. Aff teams would do well in winning their framework and attempting to win some offense against the alternative that the perm solves. Non-topical affs: I think framework is an argument but won't autovote for it. I think the most convincing neg framework arguments are T version of the aff. (Note: I have a high threshold on explanation for these sorts of arguments though you can't simply say "theres a t version of the aff" gotta explain what that T version actually is and why it can include their discussion). On the aff if you're worried about framework I find impact turns to framework standards pretty compelling. Theory: up to 3 conditional advocacies is fine. CP's like consult, delay, contions, etc. are probably not okay. Multiple perms are probably fine. RVIs are not that cool. Everything else until further ntoice is up for debate. This is by no means every opinion I have about debate. And my opinions are still being refined or changed as I continue to debate so feel free to ask if I didn't cover something you thought was important.