Tan,+Greg

//Debated for Jesuit Dallas 2013-2017//

**Topicality/theory**: I view T as an apriori/procedural and will evaluate it as such. RVIs, I will not. Counterinterpretations good, clearly explaining (regardless of side) why your interpretation is better also good. To elaborate, telling me why the opponent's interpretation is uniquely bad for the activity is first on my priority list for examining a t debate. Oh, case lists good, super easy and super useful.

**Counterplans**: Show me solvency deficits, aff. Show me sufficiency, neg. Net benefit too, need to have that. Back to aff, perm perm perm. Delineating the effects of the counterplan versus those of the plan is always nice. Theory is fine here, use it wisely.

**Disads**: Love me some case-specific links, though generic links can work well too if explained/extrapolated properly. Remember that, on its own, a DA supports an advocacy for the status quo. Lots of links are great but I'd vote on just one link with strong uniqueness and impact over tons of links with weak everything else. Contradicting DAs (goes for other types of arguments too) aren't very convincing. Yeah, don't forget uniqueness.

**Kritiks**: They're fine, just be sure to explain them clearly so all parties can understand, avoid the pitfall of buzzwords. Despite what I said on the disad section above, specific links are really what will help convince me here. Overview meh, line by line better (it's more efficient anyhow, seriously). Bear with me, more link talk, winning a link alone isn't an immediate vote neg, I'm sure you assumed that already but I just wanted to be clear. Impacts are what will convince me to vote on your argument, links and/or uniqueness are what will help me to get there.

Utopian alts not inherently bad or unconvincing, aff shouldn't hesitate to try and call you out on it though so be prepared. Vague alts on the other hand are definitely unconvincing, be specific please. Same kinda goes for perms on the aff side, show me why the perm is better or more desirable.

Framework is good too but don't throw it in there as an afterthought or something to be checked off on a block list, be strategic about it (Strategery!). Even the most well-structured K can fall to framework if I'm convinced evaluating it is bad for debate, equity, dolphins, etc.

**Affirmatives**: Plan texts are nice, I prefer them, but don't have any opinions on them past that really. In a similar fashion, defending an action of some sort is really preferable to not. Be ready for T or framework, even DAs, if you do run an advocacy statement or what have you.

**Misc**: It's nice to be nice. Clarity and quality of speech matters more to me than speed. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">Using CX to build arguments, referencing CX in speeches, super cool mode. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">Line by line is good, shouldn't have to even say that. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">You should definitely provide flashed or paper copies of evidence you read to opponents, just some way for them to see your evidence really. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">Flashing won't count as prep, ask me and I'll make a pouty face at you since that means you didn't read the philosophy I typed on my phone during a bus ride at like 10pm.