Gonzalez,+Sandra

Westwood/Dartmouth Judged around 30 rounds during the DDW/DDI & some local tournaments

The following are my opinions & preferences, but you should debate whatever you feel like debating.

A) Topicality -- it's a voting issue, but the affirmative only needs to win that their interpretation provides reasonable limits. That being said, I enjoy good, carded T debates. Impact calculus is important.

B) Theory -- slow down. I understand if you need to go for it. I default to theory arguments being a reason to reject the argument, not the team. It's also true for conditionality -- absent aff explanation for why I should reject the neg, I reject the conditionality of the counterplan and stick the neg with it. I can easily be convinced otherwise. General biases: conditionality is okay, PICs are good, conditions CPs are competitive but lack of good neg evidence makes the aff case very persuasive, consult CPs probably not competitive, international fiat probably not okay, states CPs will require some neg ev.

C) Disads -- i like them. Obviously impact calculus is important, but good affirmative defense can be sufficient to defeat a disad. If there is no link, there is no link.

D) Kritiks -- I am not familiar with most of this literature. I really enjoy security-type arguments, but good link analysis can make any kritik viable in front of me (this includes evidence as well as aff-specific analytics). Whichever side does a better job characterizing the affirmative will probably win the debate. Framework arguments aren't very persuasive. Aff probably gets their impacts, neg probably gets an alt. Aff should make sure to answer neg tricks.

E) CP's -- they are good. If it's a multi-plank counterplan, and the text is a minute long, please slow down in the 1NC and very clearly outline what you're referring to in the 2NC. PICs are enjoyable.