Ann+Kossachev

So long as you articulate your arguments clearly I will vote on pretty much anything, so...


 * Topicality: I will vote on conceded violations if they are impacted well enough in the 2NR but be very specific. I need to know why your standards matter and how the aff is abusive.**

Theory: Keep it simple. If you're putting theory on multiple flows that's fine just try to keep them distinct and then narrow it down to your best one.


 * CPs: Ok, so here's the deal...CPs are cool and all but unless you do a great job explaining why you're not being abusive I don't really like the following: consult CP, delay CP, multi-actor CP. I think they're super illegitimate. Other than that, go wild.**

Kritiks: I LOVE Ks and will definitely vote on them, but only if you can explain your alternative well enough on the link and impact level and plan solvency. There also needs to be a very clear explanation of why a permutation falls short of alt solvency because otherwise I will not hesitate to vote aff on the perm.


 * Disads: I will not vote on generic disads that don't specifically link to a plan so make sure you provide an explicit link that is triggered by the plan action.**

Case: Try to spend as much time as possible covering case arguments. For aff, don't just extend your evidence--respond to what the neg is saying specifically. This not only makes it easier to flow but provides me with an easier way of deciding in the end. For neg, make sure you say what specific aff evidence you're responding to because that makes my decision a lot easier and I like keeping things simple.

Besides the way you present yourself during the debate round (i.e. DON'T BE A JERK BECAUSE I WILL DOCK YOUR SPEAKS), you HAVE TO BE CLEAR. If I can't understand what you're saying, I will say clearer once, but after that I will stop flowing and chances are you will lose the round.

If you can make me laugh that will probably help your speaker points :)

Other than that, have fun and try not to take it too seriously!