Louden,+Austin

Westwood High School Trinity University
 * Affiliations:**

=**__Arguments__**=


 * Topicality:**

I believe the vital question in every topicality debate is which interpretation sets better predictable limits on the topic. This means evidence for your interpretation is important. In almost every case I will default to competing interpretations, but I'm occasionally sympathetic to aff reasonability arguments; especially in situations where there is very little difference between the neg's version of a topical plan and the aff plan.


 * Theory:**

I really do not enjoy voting on underdeveloped, cheap shot theory arguments. If you chose to go for one and it does not lose you the debate, it will most likely cost you some speaker points. Other than that, I feel that the terminal impacts of your theory arguments are the most important part - education, fairness etc. I will be substantially more persuaded by in-round abuse arguments than by potential abuse arguments. I think functional PICs are pretty sweet, to me it demonstrates that you did research on a specific aff. The value of word PICs is entirely dependent on the evidence you read to support them. Conditionality is fine, though condo bad arguments are considerably more persuasive in the presence of more than two counterplans and a k.


 * Framework:**

Framework alone against kritiks a terrible idea. Rather, framework should be used as a method to weigh the aff impacts against the impacts of the k.


 * Kritiks:**

K debating made up the majority of my high school career. I enjoy good K debates, and I appreciate when teams demonstrate competency in K's they're familiar with. That being said, don't read kritiks you don't feel capable of explaining them in cross-ex; I feel like a lack of understanding of the argument you're reading makes your argument considerably less persuasive despite your cards/blocks etc. Floating PIKs are fine given a reasonable explanation of how your alternative can implement/result in the aff or how it subsumes the aff impacts. Similar to cheap shot theory arguments, cheap shot K arguments can quickly become essentially tautological and a way to lose speaker points (e.g. "no vtl so we win"). Explain the internal link to the terminal impact and why the alt is important. The aff should most definitely make permutations.


 * Disads:**

Do comparative analysis of magnitude and timeframe. I think probability is best sorted out in the link and internal link debate - if you have a compelling link story, then your disad is probably probable. Going for a disad alone is typically insufficient to vote neg - case defense should at least be in the 2NR along with it.


 * Counterplans:**

If I call for any evidence, chances are it will be for the counterplan solvency advocate. Other than that, just make sure it's clear that the counterplan avoids the link to the net benefit.


 * K Affs:**

When you read a K aff, and the neg reads framework, I'd prefer if you'd integrate your advocacy with reasons why typical policy framework is bad as opposed to just reading some Kappeler or Schlag cards in the 2AC. Other than that, I do not believe that the affirmative is required to defend plan passage (though that's another question resolved in the framework debate). However, I do find framework arguments more compelling if your aff has literally nothing to do with the topic, whether it be on a local or global level.

=**__Other (Important) Things__**=

I'm not very familiar with this year's high school debate topic so please adjust accordingly; I might not know how certain disads function that you've been running since camp and assume that everyone knows.


 * Cross-Ex:**

I think cross examination is very important. I always flow cross-ex, and I'm a firm believer that what you say in cross-ex should be binding. If a commitment was made in cross-ex and the aff or neg decides to change that commitment, you should most definitely point it out.