Grange,+Robert

Debated: Juan Diego Catholic High School - 4 years Coach: Juan Diego Catholic High School - 1 year Judging: 50 + rounds on the CX topic, 1st year out judging

I debated for 4 years at Juan Diego, participating in all events. I did LD for the better part of 3 years, and then spent my senior year in policy. I ran a lot of K's and K type argumentation, but that doesn't mean you should go straight for the K, you should run whatever you feel is the best argument for the round.

Speed is all good, so long as it is understandable. If I am not flowing, its your job to slow down, become clearer, or speak up. I will say clear once or twice, but after that, its up to you.

So, as far as policy is concerned, I am open to any direction you want to take the debate, so long as it is warranted/explained/impacted etc. The debate is yours, and I will vote on what you want me to vote on, but you have to do all the leg work. As for specific positions:
 * __CX Debate__**

__Topicality__ I am not the biggest fan of T, but I will vote on it if there is a reason to vote on it, or nothing else is left in the round. Obviously, if it is dropped, I will look there, but my preference is elsewhere in the round. For you to pick up my ballot on T, you really have to make a convincing abuse claim impacting back to education and fairness lost in the round.

__Counterplans__ I like a good CP debate, especially with a creative counterplan. Get innovative with your CP texts and how they compete with the plan and it makes for an interesting debate. Make sure you provide a net benefit that you can impact back through, though, or have fantastic solvency evidence to compete with the plan.

__Disadvantages__ What I think the DA debate really lends itself to is an impact debate. So, run whatever DAs you want, but tell me why your impact matters. Good impact debate will win my ballot a lot. Impact calculus is really important, so please do it and do it well.

__Kritiks__ I am a big fan of good K debate. However, not much is worse than bad K debate. I am open to whatever you want to do in the round with the K, but please please explain it well and thoroughly. If you want to change the direction of the round, or the role of my ballot, or anything else, provide a reason to do so. Framework is an important tool in establishing the ground rules for debate, as well as a good way to help me frame the round for your K. Especially with the K, but it holds true for all positions; your tag lines and authors should be clear and discernible. If I cannot understand your K, I will not vote on it. It is your responsibility to clarify what your K says and how you want to use it in the round, not mine.

__Theory__ I evaluate theory a lot like Topicality in that you have to do a lot of work to win my ballot with it. That said, I will pick you up on it if you do the leg work. If its dropped, go for it, but impact it well. Education and Fairness are the impacts you should be going for here.

__Other stuff__ I am ok with cheap shots, independent voters, pre fiat voters, in round impacts, all that jazz. But, whatever you go for in the round needs to be well warranted, explained, and impacted. Any position you go for should include those basic things, and you will be alright.