Zalivar,+Raul

I was a debater at Fort Lauderdale High School for four years. Throughout my career i've faced and ran a variety of arguments so I am familiar with most concepts. I don't really like theory debates, I think the affirmative is just using it to whine, unless they are actually being abusive (2 conditional doesn't count) don't go for theory. T is fine, I haven't really ever judged any T debates, my partner was always the one to go for them. Non traditional affs I am more likely to lean on framework than not, I think you should probably defend some sort of topical action. Kritiks are fine as long as they aren't too sketchy, I'm familiar with most of them but for the less ainstream ones i really need a good explanation of how it affects the aff and the framework debate. DAs and CPs are always fine. The aff should always try to outweigh DAs and Ks and turn the impacts, I am themost compelled by good impact analysis as to why the aff turns the impacts of the neg and only voting aff can solve.