Millman,+Billy

Paradigm:
S peed is fine, but you must be clear. (If I can't understand you, I’ll say "clear.") That being said, this is LD and not policy, so I'm not expecting you to go policy speed, even though I can flow it.

Impact! Crystallize! Link! Weigh! Even in varsity there are a bunch of kids that don't do one of these things. Tell me why your arguments matter. Please don't blippily extend cards, tell me why they are important (claim warrant impact.) I'm open as to style, structure of case, (i.e. kritik, narrative, etc.)


 * Theory** comes first on the flow for me. But you must so be clear about what your violations mean (what is conditionality in the context of the resolution?).Prove to me that there is legitimate abuse. However, running a theory shell on how an opponent's argument is unpredictable/takes away ground, and then responding to it doesn't make sense to me. Either you can or you cannot respond to it, there is no in between. Explain why I should vote on your RVI. If you don't then all you've done is taken out theory.

Also don't be rude. If you are then I will dock you points for it.