Hanna,+Jackson

=**General**= I have debated 2 years of policy debate at Crossings Christian School. overall I really like debates policy or kritikal I will explain more of that down below. I think debate is a game with no defined rules besides speaker times. I think debate should be funcand educational experience. Debate is what you make of it. I strongly believe in not calling for cards after a debate the only instance I will call for a card is if someone says the card is from 2017 but someone says it is from 2012 and such I think it is the teams right to explain the card to. Speed is good be clear I will say clear twice but after that I will drop my pen and stop flowing. Please start your speeches a bit slower so that I can get used to you voice especially on the neg I think you have to start slow on the 1nc if you are running T because if you don't I will probably miss a t violation. =**Aff**= **Policy aff** Policy affs are good they allow for education on the aff i think the impact scenarios should be well explained in the 2ac and beyond i also think that you should have the ability to turn almost every k at least try to. I also think it is the aff's burden to be topical and they should provide a topical plan. **k aff** I like k affs but i hate k affs i enjoy the idea of the affs and the case debates on k affs i hate the generic cap and framework i think that the aff can easily win that they are good for debate compared to the neg please have some good disads on framework for a k aff it will go a long ways for me as long as you explain why they are a voting issue to me. THE ONLY DISAD ON T I DONT LIKE IS A DISAD THAT SAYS YOU ARE SILENCING MY VOICE. **Neg positions**  **Da.** I think da debates are good debates to be had I think you should have a link that is specific but if you have a generic link you could still win that being said I think it is very possible for the aff to win the disad with a well explained no link arguement if it is generic. I think that da usually have a bad internal link scenario please explain how your internal link scenario works in relation to the aff. **Cp** pics are pretty bad in my opinion that being I sway to the aff for pics but as the neg you can easily win this with good explanation of why they are good and why the aff forces you to read a pic. Cp's are pretty good in general I think when you have a good cp than it allows for interesting debates. **K vs policy affs** I am very familiar with settler colonialism, biopower, cap I know quite a few high theory kritiks decent all of these needs to be explained to win I won't do much work for you if you run a kritiks that I run. I think kritiks are awesome and love kritkal debates vs policy affs I think he best debates are debates that involve the rhetoric of the aff plan. Link of omissions are usually bad specific links are good. You can easily win that kritiks o/w aff I do think aff gets to weigh the aff vs the kritiks that being said s/v is bad and probable nuclear war most likely won't happen. I can be persuaded both ways. There should be a Rotb or rotj **K vs k aff** this is my favorite start against a k aff I do it against almost every k aff this year I think biopower is viable against k affs. If the k has a political action and the aff has an advocacy statement than I usually don't grant perm if cede the political is present. As far as s/v vs s/v debate I think a root cause arguement can be articulated by either side. The way I go about a s/v debate is the amount of people affected and how bad the oppression is. **Theory** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Theory is good I like it I think it is way underused by the aff this year 50 states fiat is pretty bad overall I sway to aff for fifty states fiat but neg can win this I go either way reject the arguement or reject the team it needs to be articulated though. Condo 2 or more Squo is always and option. When a team reads amkritik that says the aff is bad I don't think you should ever read a counterplsn with it aff can easily win perf contradictions and it is a voting issue. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**T** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Super under used by neg I will vote on t. T debates are really fun to watch in my opinion I default neg on reasonability but I can go aff on it if explained well enough. To win on t you should have a tva and case list as well as good standards and impacts education is not an impact no one actually quits debate because of one aff.