Barnum,+Miriam

I've debated for Los Alamos HS (New Mexico) and a bit for Harvard.

I've been both a 2A and a 2N for substantial amounts of time, so I feel everyone's pain.

The short version - don't be stupid. This should go without saying. - read arguments you understand and can do well. - compare things (impacts, evidence, quals). If I have to do this for you I will be very sad. - talk fast. This should also go without saying, but in some sad corners of the world it does not. 


 * Critiques, etc -** I'm fairly middle of the road, ok with both k and policy. Stick with whatever arguments work best for you, as long as you are prepared to their theoretical legitimacy. That said, nobody comes into debate without biases - I read a fair amount of standard k stuff, so I'm not too sympathetic towards arguments like "OMG THE K IS CHEATING VOTE THEM DOWN", but I've also always read a plan text and have plenty experience with the CP/politics strategy, so I'm definitely not the biggest k hack out there. I'm more familiar with lit on epistemology k's than anything else (especially femminism, cap, and security)

**CP's -** do what you want, but win theory. If you're going to run a theoretically questionable cp (PICs, condition, counsult, etc) make actual arguments that are specific to the aff. Solvency advocates are wonderful things. I like clever things, but I don't really want to here your super generic word PIC out of "USfg".

**Theory and T -** impacts. Thinking beyond the blocks you read every single round is probably a good thing.

Feel free to ask any other questions before the round or email me at miriam.barnum@gmail.com