Villa,+Vale

Background: 4 years at Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart Second Year at Wake Forest University

A few things to note: I default to offense/defense. I reward case specific strategies. Be nice and have fun!

T - Usually about competing interpretations. Too often the affirmative doesn’t call into question the claim that limits are good. This is important if you want to make reasonability persuasive AT ALL. In-depth comparisons of interpretations is key. The impact debate is just as important here as it in a DA. Evidence is important. T is not a reverse voting issue.

Counterplans - They’re great. Process counterplans are usually not competitive. This depends on aff specific solvency evidence and the theory debate. I believe there are EFFECTS of the plan and MANDATES of the plan. This should guide your theory debate for process CPs. If the CP solves 100%, my threshold for the DA becomes VERY low.

Disads: They’re also good. Evidence comparison is important. Impact calculus is even more important. The words “turns the case” mean a lot. Politics DAs are intrinsic.

Kritiks – I’m not well-read on extremely left-leaning arguments. This means that the level of explanation, specifically for the alternative, will have to be much higher than in most debates. I think of Kritiks like a counterplan with net-benefits. The more aff specific the better.