Knowles,+Kolin

Short Version: I'll vote on anything, as long as it's impacted and extended properly. I'm not stingy with flashing, tag team,

Long: I debated for 4 years at Sky View in Utah. 1 Year in Congress, 2 in CX, and 1 in PF.

Speed: Because I'm not familiar at all with the topic, slowing down on tags, plan texts, and T/Theory Standards would be super groovy.


 * Arguments**

DA: I'm cool with it, I like Link/Internal debate on the DA.

CP: Go Ahead. Need to have Net Benefit that obviously links to the CP.

T/Theory: I have no problems with voting on T or Theory, as long as they're impacted.

K's: I like K debates I think they spur interesting conversations. That being said, I don't want competitors running a Kritik for the sake of running a Kritik. I need you to explain the K and-if it applies- what in round impacts and what not that is included with a K argument. Also, I like the explanation so I can know that you know what you're talking about. Link debate is important to me, its annoying and embarrassing when the K doesn't apply to the Aff (i.e. don't run Anthro, if the Aff isn't anthropocentric) Framework is the same way.

Essentially, I vote on what you win. As long as you give me reason to vote on it.