DeLap,+Hope

I debated all four years in high school at Rowland Hall. I am somewhat familiar with the topic after working at SCFI over the summer, but I will need jargon and acronyms explained. Generally, I will vote for anything. It is up to you what you want in the debate. Remember that clarity is more important than speed.


 * Theory**: Theory debates are not my favorite. I expect there to be a clear abuse story. Clash is important, don’t just read blocks at each other. Most importantly, impact your theory arguments. Nuanced arguments will be given more weight than blippy claims like “everyone leaves the activity.”


 * Topicality**: Just as in theory debates, the neg must have a specific violation that is well warranted and executed properly (this means impacts). For me to vote on T I need teams to explain their interpretation, topical cases under their definition, and impact the violation.


 * Framework:** Framework can be very strategic, but once again, arguments must be impacted.


 * Kritiks:** I really enjoy kritik debates when K’s are specific to the aff. Long overviews don’t get you much and I will reward clash on the line-by-line. However, it is important to explain terms and ideas specific to your argument. The link story should be relevant to the topic and negatives should look to aff cards to generate link analysis.


 * K Affs:** I prefer K affs that are uniquely relevant to the topic and that have a plan text or advocacy that the team will defend throughout the debate.


 * CPs:** PICs or specific CPs are better than generics. If you read a Consult CP or Conditions CP you must be prepared to answer theory. Generic CPs can be effective if you have good cards specific to the aff’s mechanism or implementation.


 * DAs:** I love politics and disads in general. My favorite strategy (besides a K) is DA and case. Spend time on case when going for a DA. Case offense and defense is often underutilized even though it’s highly strategic.