Karthikeyan,+Viveth

 tl;dr: relax, debate should be fun not stressful - be smart, nice, funny, and most importantly take debate seriously. I promise, if you look like you care and are trying hard, I will do the same when evaluating arguments and assigning speaker points. I do want to be on the email chains: kviveth@gmail.com  Evidence/Debating: Dropped arguments and spin can be true/good to an extent. If you are not making a complete argument or going for a 2 line long card the other team dropped, you're going to be unhappy with the decision. It's a communication activity. You have 4 speeches to explain to me why microfacism outweighs global warming. if you can't do that, you're going to lose despite the aff dropping the paragraph of a thousand plateaus you read in the 2NC. CX ends after three minutes. You can take more prep time to ask questions, but it won't be "on the record"  Topicality - I judge T debates like every other debate, i don't think you need to prove that debate was impossible because of the counter interpretation, only that the aff makes debates significantly worse. I find most explanations of "Aff flexibility/ground" are more jargon than impact calc.  "Framework" --  Neg -- go for T not framework. Framework is a control of form (i.e. you cannot present alternative types of evidence, you cannot perform, etc.) Topicality is a modest limit on content (i.e. we should be discussing the topic). I am not persuaded by the policy education good impact to framework. The neg going for "debate skills" and "decision making" will have a hard time winning on T in front of me. Fairness IS an impact. It is not contestable that debate IS a competition (even if the aff says it should be more than JUST a game) and preserving its game nature is necessary to actualize any benefits to the activity. What makes debate valuable is not any specific product, but a process that revolves around testing arguments with a level of rigor and tenacity created by the equal prospect of victory. To rig the game in favor of one team because they've chosen to not defend the resolution for 2 hours makes zero sense to me. T version of the aff should not be framed as a no link argument. It is used to prove that there is a way the aff can debate similar content, while adhering to the resolution. Disads the aff wins to the T verison (i.e. it can't solve the aff) are GOOD because they prove that there is negative ground that is built in to the topic.  Aff -- I don't think there are many persuasive reasons to not be topical if the neg is going for a Fairness impact. However, my record in T v. K aff debates has been very aff leaning because the aff is often better at collapsing the distinction between form and content and linking fairness to a specific form of education that the aff is better at critiquing then the neg is at defending. This should be the aff's strategy against "framework". The 1AC shouldn't get lost in the debate by either team; using the aff solvency args to implicate framework / topicality is sweet.  Counter Plans - <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">I don't like CPs that compete of certainty and immediacy ONLY. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">the "always a risk of the CP linking less than the plan" is silly. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">You don't need solvency advocates or cards for smart and intuitive advantage CPs and 2NC CPs out of addons. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">I'll default to kicking CPs for the neg if the CP is conditional until told not to by the aff. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"> Kritik - <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">Good K debating is good case debating. If you aren't talking about the case while going for the K, you are likely going to lose. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">I think aff inclusive critiques are good for debate if the critique is about a foundational assumption of the aff. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"> Theory - <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">Most theory arguments (except for condo bad) are reasons to reject the arg, not the team. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">Condo - Debates are best with the CP either dispositional or unconditional with several net benefits, but I understand that this topic is hard for the neg and will give some leeway. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">Counter-interpretations in theory debates are arbitrary. It's better that you defend "the practice" than "what you did in this debate". For example, the neg's counter interp on condo of "we get 2" is arbitrary and silly given the aff is (usually) making an arg for why the practice of conditionality is bad. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"> About me: I currently coach at Westminster. I debated at Chattahoochee for 4 years and am now a Senior and debater at Emory University.