Harris,+Martell

T- Affirmatives must be topical. There isn’t much more to say on this issue. Except that negatives should not run T on painfully obviously topical affirmatives. If you are running T as a time suck I will notice and speaker points will suffer. If there is no chance of you going for T in the 2NR lets not waste everyones energy with having it in the 1NC. If you want to win on T show me the in round abuse. Potential abuse is winnable in front of me but it is a high burden for the neg to prove. Reasonability is good enough unless the plan text is not grammatically correct. ASPEC is stupid you will never win this argument unless the aff cold drops it in the 2AC. WSPEC less stupid and a very valid argument ie. The aff should make it easy for everyone and cite their sources (and have the quals available) in the 1AC. If your author is a moron no matter what your cards say in them dosent really matter. Thus you should be able to defend your authors. I will not however make this argument for the neg so that’s all up to you.

K- Kritiks must link to the specific in round affirmative plan text. I personally think Ks are a lame attempt to hijack the round so if the K don’t fit… well I will aquit the affirmatives “responsibility” to your advocacy. That said its not too hard to link specifically to a plan so I ask you not be lazy about it. Keep in mind I am very open to framework arguments centered around switch side debate and aff choice and what not so if you want to take the round into your own hands and run a K I would advise you be very good at arguing framework/theory. Being someone who approves of aff choice, Kish affirmatives are more than welcome in front of me, just have a topical plan text and everything will be peachy. Oh and please have an alternative that means something (not just reject the affirmative or reject their thinking, your alternative needs to solve for the issue you deemed so important to tell me about) Oh yeah and don’t contradict yourself in the round. That just makes you look silly.

Counterplans- I love counterplans. They definitely tickle my fancy. I will listen to any theoretical objection to counterplans the aff can come up with, assuming those objections link to the counterplan (is anyone noticing a trend here? Its that I hate crappy generic links.) The status quo is always an option unless you give unconditional status to the counterplan, then you are just a mean person. As far as other status questions they mean different things to different people, as such the aff better ask in 1NC cross what the status is AND what it means. Otherwise you are liable for whatever the negative does to you in the 2NR.

Performance- If you can find a way to make your performance topical (for affs) or answer the affirmative’s arguments (for negs) feel free to go for your Oscar. Just remember what I said about not having stupid crappy generic links.

Das- These are great. Make sure they link to the aff. Have decent Uniqueness evidence cause if the aff has better (which dosent necessarily mean more recent but that is a big help) that means a whole lotta bad things for the successful execution of the argument your trying to make. DAs can be turned against the neg as extra advantages to the aff (which depending on what the block does may not necessarily qualify as new 1AR arguments) Good links are key especially the internal link to your impact.

Random Dealies- RVIs are stupid. They wont win the round. Double turning is bad. It will lose the round. New arguments in the 2NC are ok, in the 1NR are not ok. They wont be at all used in the evaluation of the round. Impact turns are awesome. Impact calculus is NECESSARY. Id rather hear 3 good arguments than 9 horrible contradictory ones. If you have any other questions ask me before the round. If you ask anything that is addressed in this philosophy I will give you a dirty look. See you in round.