Powell,+Ryan

__Experience__: Debated 4 years at Notre Dame in CA (2012 - 2016). Attended TOC and NDCA both Junior and Senior year. Now coaching for Notre Dame. I have judged 4 tournaments on the China topic, but still have limited knowledge on the topic.

__Short version__: You do you. I've gone for framework, kritiks, politics, and read k affs, so I'm pretty much open to anything if you can defend it, just don't be offensive etc

__General Notes__: -I'm pretty bad at flowing, so slow down, be especially clear, and give me some pen time if you are reading a bunch of analytics -an argument consists of a claim, warrant, and impact -a dropped argument still needs to be explained well -there's always a risk, but you can reduce that risk low enough to be irrelevant -good explanation with bad cards > bad explanation with amazing cards

__Long version__:

Topicality: It's cool, I don't care if most people think an aff is topical, if you win that it shouldn't be then I'll vote for you.

Theory: I lean neg on most issues, until it gets to the point where the counterplan makes it close to impossible for the aff to win without straight turning the net benny

Disads: Sure

Counterplans: See above, being more specific will help your speaks and make it easier to win the counterplan is legitimate.

Kritiks: I like these a lot when they are really specific, the better your link game is the better your alt, framework, and impacts seem. Don't assume I know everything about your kritik. Stuff like security, cap, Heidegger etc are all great obviously. Anything weirder is cool too, you'll just need much deeper explanation of you arg because I most likely don't know a ton about it yet. Teams often fail to explain why framework matters on both sides, so make that explicit or else I'll probably default to letting the aff weigh their impacts vs whatever you have going on. Keep overviews short and sweet, most of the impact work/ k explanation probably fits better somewhere on the line by line.

Critical affs/Framework: They are cool if you can defend not defending a plan text, but that is a slightly uphill battle in front of me. The closer you are to the resolution, the easier it is to get my ballot. If you win the debate I'll vote for you, but I tend to agree with most of neg's args. Luckily, a lot of teams are bad at framework so you are probably fine. To correct this, the neg should make sure they are engaging the aff on a substantive level and focusing more on how framework interacts with case instead of going for theory impacts. Edit as of summer 2015: The more I think about it, it really isn't that hard to come up with negative strategies for these affs. Cap links to almost everything, so prepping that and maybe 1 or 2 more generics would give you something to say against almost everything. So many negative arguments on framework are too cliche and totally contrived, while a lot of aff arguments are really hard to deal with. That being said, don't be afraid to go for framework if that's your style.

__Other stuff (dont take any of this seriously)__: -favorite arguments are aspec, consult nato, and death good -extra .2 speaks if you make a joke about Zane Dille in your speeches -extra .1 speaks for a good pun, but its extra .5 if that pun is about Zain Dille -the equation E=mc^2 is sexist, please avoid -debaters I like: pretty much only Jaden Lessnick -debaters I don't like: Zayine Dille -my dream has always been to do duo interp, so I'm cool with it if both teams agree to forgo policy debate in favor that -underpuppy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlSQ_uIl7Qo -I think it's an RVI to make RVI's on T, but it's also an RVI for the neg to say that making RVI's is an RVI -extra speaker point for everyone if you agree to cut speech times in half