Munthe,+Listya

Listya Munthe Chattahoochee Class of 2014 Debated for Chattahoochee for four years. Attending the University of Georgia but I do not debate in college.

__**General Information:** __

 I think debate is a great activity and I think that its great for all the debaters to enjoy themselves in round. Have fun. Be Nice. Don't fight, too much. I think that debaters should be rewarded for their hard work. I also think that a crucial point is that the debaters should do the framing and tell me how to write my ballot. If you want me to read a certain piece of evidence, tell me. Those who do any of this will be rewarded with good speaks. Lastly, I do not know a lot about the topic since I didn't work at a camp this summer, so please don't assume that I know what every acronym or word on this topic means. I have read literature pertaining to the topic, so I know some things though, but just make sure that things are clear and explained well, and this shouldn't be a problem.

__**Topicality:**__

 This is a place that I find debate in lower levels to be messy and ultimately hard to decide due to dropped arguments and messed up answers. I enjoy a good T debate, but if you are unable to keep these debates clean and organized, then don't go for it..please...pretty pretty please. If you do have the guts to go for topicality make sure to clearly articulate and impact your standards/interpretation.

__**Theory:**__ I don't like these debates and I prefer substance over these debates due to their messiness and usually blipyness as well. The same philosophy for topicality applies here.

For **counterplan competition** this is how i feel. PICs - Legitimate International- I don't like them, but I'll listen to it. States- Legitimate to an extent. They can get super abusive, but its a debate to be had. Agent/Consult - Illegitimate Conditions - legitimate if topic specific

Two is fine, Three is **really** pushing it, anything over is illegitimate.
 * __Conditionality:__ **

__**Framework:**__ You need a plan, needa defend it, nuff said. I do not want to listen to a no plan/plan but don't defend it round. You will lose, on framework. And I __**will throw**__ things at you.

__** Counterplans: **__ See above for competition. I love counterplan/net benefit debates as well as disad vs plan debates. Especially if your counterplan is specific, and advantage counterplans are coolio too. These are the debates I usually engage in. If you have a specific PIC I love it, and even if you don't, I'm probably going to still flow the round.

__** Disads: **__

These debates, as said above are debates I usually have and am most comfortable with. I think my philosophy is really in lign with this:

"There is zero risk of a disad, and it happens a lot. I am a firm believer of there being zero risk of a disad and am not persuaded by 'there's always a risk'. I feel that the impact level of disadvantages (as well as advantages) are way to often the focus of the debate, and I find that debates about a solid link defense/turn or internal link defense can win a round more often than other things. With that being said, I feel that a disadvantage with alot of explanation of how it accesses case, why I should prefer it, and why it comes first are persuasive, but I don't feel that its an automatic negative ballot if the 1AR just drops them because they sat on another argument on the flow. All that is needed is one argument to beat a disadvantage. The status squo I feel has become a debate that is less willing to be had and I think that a good case/disad debate can be very strategic at times." - Amar

__ **Kritiks:** __

If you love the kritik, you don't love me. These are not debates I have and thus I am not familiar with alot of the literature of kritiks. I am __very__ familiar with any kritik that is security based or capitalist based, and if you can debate this well, I am willing to hear it. These rounds are enjoyable to watch, as long as you can keep it clean, explain the kritik and avoid a bunch of jargon. K tricks are dumb but strategic, and I am willing to vote on them. Floating PIKs are illegitimate, unless dropped but they have to be labeled. You don't have to be like the alt is a floating pik but it needs to be relatively clear to the fact that the alternative does resolve the issues of case, and solves. There needs to be an explanation of how this is true and how the alternative accesses case as well. The alternative is by far the weakest part of the debate and if the alt doesn't solve case, and the aff is winning access to their case, I am largely persuaded by case outweighs, and I think that is one of the best sources of offense of the aff and should be exploited.

__ **Paperless Debate:** __

Prep time stops when the flash drive leaves the computer.