Kossachev,+Ann

So long as you articulate your arguments clearly I will vote on pretty much anything. //**Topicality:**// I will vote on conceded violations if they are impacted well enough in the 2NR, but be very specific. I need to know why your standards matter and how the aff is abusive. Aff, if you can convince me that the neg is either 1) using T as a way to skirt around an educational discussion of the resolution, or 2) uniquely abusive because they are just trying to create a time skew for the 2AC/1AR, I will not evaluate T because some T args are pretty dumb. //**Theory:**// Sure. If you're putting theory on multiple flows that's fine just make sure it doesn't just become one big theory blob, that's just irritating. //**CPs:**// Okay, so here's the deal...CPs are cool and all, but unless you do a great job explaining why you're not being abusive I don't really like the following: consult CPs, delay CPs, multi-actor CPs. I think they're super illegitimate. Other than that, go wild. //**Kritiks:**// I LOVE Ks and will definitely vote on them, but only if you can explain your alternative well enough: that means 1) a specific, nuanced link 2) clearly explained impacts 3) a clever case turn or reason why the alt solves for the plan better than the aff. There also needs to be a very clear explanation of why a permutation falls short of alt solvency because otherwise I will not hesitate to vote aff on the perm. //**Disads:**// I will not vote on generic DAs that don't specifically link to a plan so make sure you provide an explicit link that is triggered by the plan action.

In addition to the way you present yourself during the debate round (i.e. DON'T BE A JERK BECAUSE I WILL DOCK YOUR SPEAKS ), you MUST BE CLEAR. If I can't understand what you're saying, I will say clearer once, but after that I will stop flowing and chances are you will lose the round. If you can make me laugh that will probably help your speaker points =) Remember, it's just a game. Have fun!!!!