Franco,+Luis

Hey I am Luis. I Have done debate for four years and dabbled with it my first semester at the University of Florida. That being said, speed is not a problem as long as you're clear.

The Aff- The affirmative should hold a policy making choice. The choice can be outrageous and result in critical advantages, but there should be a plan text.

Topicality- Topicality is definitely a voter, but it is not a reverse voter. If you want to run RVI's on T do it, and if it's dropped well the round is yours. I tend to lean to reasonability, but I will evaluate T however both teams tell me too. If the reasons why competing interpretations is better is never answered too, well then, I am voting on the best competing interpretation.

Cps- I enjoy tricky counter plans. If your counter plan is fund the plan minus a penny, there better be some really awesome net benefit to that. If there is then I have no problem listening/voting on it.

DA's- Please do some impact work. I do not want to listen to a link vs no link debate ONLY with the impact only brought up i the 2nr.

K's- I am not familiar with a lot of K literature EXCEPT for the capitalism K. I have heard many forms and interpretations of the Cap debate and won't need too much help understanding. ALL OTHER K'S you better explain to me in depth what your argument is and why the aff should lose because of it. For the Aff I suggest leveraging case. If you solve for extinction I tend to think that is better than solving for some discourse in the round.Please use framework. If no one mentions framework in a K round I will lean towards a policy making framework for the round.

Theory: I will listen to it and I will vote on it, but please make sure you have some reason why pics are bad. OR why ASPEC is actually necessary.

Overall just impact your arguments to make it known to me why I should vote on them. If you say pics are bad well why are they bad? Don't just read generic blocks. Make applications to what is going on within the round.