Mihelcic,+Zeke

T: I'll vote on T, but usually there must be some kind of in-round abuse proven. That isn't to say I won't vote on "they justify x", but it's harder for me to pull the trigger on that without some really good examples. I really need a good, clear story out of the block on T for me to consider it as a 2NR option. FW: To make me vote on FW, you're going to have to have a really clear story about the impacts of your FW. I also like to hear a lot of standards analysis as to why you better access some standards or why your standards outweigh or why your standards subsume theirs. Impact out each standard that you're going for. Other Procedurals: I'll vote on them as an easy out in a round. My inherent bias is that condo is okay with two conditional, contradictory arguments in the 1NC, as long as no more than one of those makes it into the 2NR. K: I used to love the K, but now I'm not as sure. While I may find the claims of many K's to be true (I identify as anti-capitalist and anti-state), that does not mean I am biased towards voting for them. As the neg, I need to hear why your K outweighs case. I'm very partial to the K turns the aff/makes it's impacts inevitable arguments, but you should explain how it does that for each specific advantage. As the aff, you should try to engage the substance of the K as much as you can, because realism good, USFG good, and action good alone probably won't win you the round. DA: I like them. Warrant analysis and impact analysis is a must on both sides. CP: I also like them. I like squirrely CPs. I like advantage CPs. I like PICs. I think they are strategic. As the neg, I like to hear why a solvency deficit to the CP doesn't outweigh the net benefit. We solve better is not a compelling net benefit without a substantial amount of case arguments that your CP doesn't link to. As the aff, solvency deficits alone won't win you the CP flow. You need to have some kind of offense on the CP or an advantage that they don't solve for entirely to leverage against them. In a round where CP and aff solve equally and there is no net benefit to the CP, I'll vote aff. I think the CP flips presumption if you go for the CP. Case: I love a good case debate. Case + DA became my favorite thing to go for by the time I stopped debating. As the aff, I like to see you use your 1AC wisely to answer back as many case arguments as possible. As the neg, I like to see as many diversified case arguments as possible. If you're doing a case dump, please try to organize it by each contention of the 1AC rather than just telling me you're going to go to case at the end. I'd much rather hear that you're going to go on advantage 1, advantage 2, and solvency than just saying case. It makes my flows better, which makes my evaluation of the round better.