Birgenheir,+Philip

I have 3 years of policy debate experience and 1 year of coaching/judging experience. That being said, things were much more policy-oriented back when I did it, and I understand policy options better than non-policy options (i.e. Disads, counterplans). I also don't mind T.

K's: I'm not unwilling to vote on a K, but if it is strange/bizarre, you're really going to have to explain it well. In addition, if you are running some sketchy K that you don't fully understand or flesh out, I'm definitely not gonna vote for it. Also, I think links in a K (or any argument for that matter) debate are key, and I'm willing to vote for or against K's depending on the link story more often than I'll vote on frameworky education vs fairness stuff. Also, in my mind, K doesn't always outweigh and turn all of AFF advantages, so make sure you're providing good analysis of why your K impacts are important, turn case, etc.

Other stuff: 1) I'm pro-fiat, because I am the supreme overlord in the round; if I vote AFF the plan takes effect, and I'm unwilling to listen to Fiat theory. So it was written, so it shall be done. What this also means is that I like policy affs better than K affs, because it gives me something easy to vote for if the aff outweighs. 2) I would rather that Cap K's aren't read. I'm against cap, which leaves the opposing team with framework, which I like less than debate on the K proper, so... any team forced to defend cap should be crying abuse. 3) Global warming is real and anthropogenic. 4) I find personal narratives pretty weightless in a round, but if that is all you got, I guess go for it.