Reyes,Carl

I guess we'll get the important stuff out of the way first. The affirmative should read a topical plan text that enforces United States federal government action. If you read some sort of a performance aff, you probably shouldn't pref me very high.

That being said I'll do the whole specific thing like everyone else does.

__**Topicality/Procedurals:**__ I think that these debates are some of the most entertaining to have, but are usually executed poorly and are some of the least interesting to judge. That doesn't mean not to run them, I love T and go for it when I can, but make sure it's done well, clear distinctions between interp/counter-interp debates, clear articulation of your standards in the context of creating a better model for debate etc. Theory debates are awesome, but I usually tend to err neg on those questions. Speeding through blocks is inevitable, but try to slow down a little bit, especially in the rebuttal speeches, slow down, tell me why they're cheating, and tell me why that's bad.

__**Kritiks:**__ Despite having read a lot of the "k literature" whatever that means, I generally dislike these debates. Regardless I read kritiks a lot and vote on them a lot. Kritiks need to have a CLEAR and SPECIFIC link and an alternative that SOLVES THE CASE. Also, please don't make the argument that fiat is illusory or similar arguments as to why voting affirmative doesn't really do anything in terms of real world change. Voting affirmative simply endorses a world where the government SHOULD take action. If the affirmative can win that there are benefits to taking that action they stand a good chance of winning. If you are affirmative against the kritik I encourage you to stand your ground by defending the validity of your 1AC claims and prove why the alternative can’t solve as well as the plan. (ps, framework is good)

__**Counterplans:**__ Counterplans are awesome and fun and running them in front of me with a good net benefit is probably a good idea. I like really specific PICs with good evidence to support them.

__**Disads:**__ See above, they're awesome. I think the ideal 2NR for me is a counterplan and a politics DA.

__**Case:**__ I think that case debate is lacking a lot in High School debate. The 1AC is the starting point of the debate... the neg should argue it and the aff should defend it. I think case debates are probably some of the best debates out there, and definitely help bolster 2NR strategies. Case defense + disad = good strategy.

If you have any other questions see Sue and Jason Petersons philosophies, mine will be strikingly similar. Or you could just ask me before the debate starts, that works too. Thanks everyone and have fun!