Caprara,+Colin

Colin Caprara 2004-2008: Policy debate with La Costa Canyon High School 2012-Present: Policy coach with the Bay Area Urban Debate League

Tabla Rasa judge. It is your debate round, so you should do whatever you want. This does not mean, however, that you do not need to justify why you’re running the arguments you run. Disad-counterplan strategies should still defend and explain why a policy framework is best and K, T, or theory strategies should do the same.

On Kritiks, you can’t win without detailed explanations of your link story and precisely how the impact relates to or interacts with case advantages. On framework, I need a clear explanation of the impacts to your standards and why your interpretation makes for a better world of policy debate. You will need to invest a lot of time to convince me that a particular type of argument or impact has no relevance to the round, because I do believe these arguments are exclusionary and wrong.

On theory and topicality, you must again clearly articulate why your interpretation creates a better world for debate. What specific ground do you lose, why is their interpretation or violation unfair, and what specifically happens to education. Briefly mentioned independent voters will not fly; if you want to win here invest significant time. I like cheap shots, but only if they’re well explained and impacted.

Speed is fine as long as you’re clear -- I should be able to tell the difference between your tag and the evidence.

If you like speaker points, make good use out of your cross ex and don’t be rude. If you hate speaker points, be snotty in CX and ask the other team to “explain their advantages”.