Ali,+Tarek

I debated for four years in high school at Westside. I ran both policy and kritikal strategies, and am fairly comfortable with both. I have a high threshold for T and theory arguments, but as long as they are well warranted, they're fine. I do default to reasonability on T. I prefer clashy case arguments/Ks that directly engage the aff's advantages or rhetoric. Conditionality is fine. Affs without plan texts are fine, but the neg has the right to challenge them on it. In terms of framework, I prefer competing case limits, and which interpretation is better for education over fairness arguments.

I haven't judged on this topic this year, so I'm unfamiliar with it, and don't assume I know things.