Sun,+Emily

I am currently a 3rd year debater for Johns Creek. I am typically the 2a.

Basically, run what you’re most comfortable with. The debates where debaters actually know their evidence tend to be the best. Explain your arguments well and I will listen to whatever you have to say. However, I won’t do the work for you—tell me why you win and why I should vote for you.

For specifics:

**K**- I’ve run kritikal affs for the past two years, both with and without a plan so I am definitely not opposed to the K. That being said, don’t just throw around buzz words and assume I understand. Explain how the kritik interacts with the aff and what my role of the ballot is.

**CP-** Don’t be stupid. Counterplans should be functionally and textually competitive. If you want to run a cheaty counterplan, tell me why you need the cheaty.

**DA**- See above. Disad outweighs and turns the case? Great. Now explain why. Case specific disads are nice. Neg has to prove a link.

**Topicality/FW/theory**- I have a fairly high threshold for these sorts of arguments. This doesn’t mean I won’t vote on it but you have to prove the abuse. Debate it like you would a DA meaning I need some impact analysis. I tend to lean more towards education-based arguments.

Be smart. Be nice. Have fun.