Jagot,+Nathan

I'm in my 4th year of debate at Caddo Magnet High in Shreveport, LA. TLDR; you do you. I'm comfortable voting on pretty much anything, just make it clear on why I need to vote on it. For email chains: nathan.jagot@gmail.com

**AFFs:** Do what you want here. I'm comfortable with K/Policy but you need to defend a few things to get me to believe the AFF does something: defend your solvency mechanism and why the AFF is explicitly key to your process (prioritize your offense), defend your method/model of debate and why it's net better to education, and make sure you at least make some indication of how your specific method interacts with either the K or FW the other team reads against you.

**Framework (T-USFG):** I guess I'm okay with framework. You do you, but just make sure you defend it more as "their model of debate is net worse for education..." and whatever other standards you decide to read. I don't think the route of saying "they don't defend the resolution so you should vote them down" as a 2NR strat is super strategic but make it apparent that their model of debate is net worse for "xyz" reasons. I default AFF to most generic framework debates like what I just described because if you just say "they're not T so vote them down" without any explanation or impact, I grant them weight that the AFF is key to overcome dominant ideologies, etc. (whatever other argument they decide to go for).

**T (other violations):** If the AFF just, like, isn't topical I won't be opposed to T. If the AFF is topical and you read T as a time skew, I guess that's cool but like, spend your time elsewhere generating better offense. If the AFF just really isn't topical I'll probably vote on T. Please don't make sketchy T args you know I'm probably not going to vote on.

**DAs:** They're fine, I like DA debates. Just explain your impacts and how they interact with the AFF and how doing the AFF is bad, etc.

**CPs:** I'm not opposed to them, but I'm also not a huge fan. If your route is to steal the AFF I'll probably still default AFF because that's obviously unfair. Just make sure you tell me why your method is better than the AFF's.

**Ks:** I'm super cool with these. Structural K's are fun and should not be discounted. Good teams can always win arguments on specificities within these debates (makes for better debates in my opinion) rather than an obscure K that probably doesn't link to the AFF and they may not have answers to (in essence, you should engage clash head on rather than "ha! gotcha!" - but you do you, I'll vote on anything you make a voter. Make sure your links are contextual to the AFF and if it's a 1-off debate try to have a variety of links you can go for and label them so I know what they are by the end of the 2NR. Also, make sure I know how the alternative is crucial to resolve the links and why our method actually does something (or at least claims to).

**Theory:** I'm not that familiar with theory but if you want to go for it, I'm not opposed to any theory just make sure why each standard or subpoint has an independent impact I should be concerned about and ready to vote on.