Zapata,+Quinn

Competed in policy at Hamilton High School (AZ) - 1a/2n

=TL;DR= Quality > Quantity. It's your debate, debate what you want. Love K's of any kind. T/FW is alright, just make sure to impact everything. Be understandable, do clash for me, do the work for me. I listen to CX and it is binding. Flashing isn't prep. Debate well, don't be mean, don't be offensive, respect each other.
 * Note**: I have not judged any debates on this topic. Please explain your acronyms.

=Speaker Points= <27: unfortunate 27-28: mediocre 28-28.8: good 28.8-29.5: very good 29.5-30: excellent

=Specific Arguments=


 * Affirmatives--**Any style or way you want to present your affirmative is fine with me, just be sure you can justify it.


 * Case--**Try not to contradict here; however, if you can contextualize your arguments well to the affirmative a case debate is very impressive to see. Try to avoid making this debate "not my [insert some author]" and actually have a contextualized debate here. Line by line analysis as opposed to long generic overviews are preferred.

**Counterplans--**You must have a good analysis of how you resolve the net benefit of the CP if you're going for it. Neg must explain how they are competitive and should be preferred over the affirmative. Evidence should be good and actually say what you want it to say if you want me to vote for you. Theory is often insufficient unless entirely dropped.


 * Disads-- ** Any kind of DA is chill, do good impact comparison. Tell me why I should care.


 * Kritik-- **This is where I spent most my debate career. I think K's are good as long as you can explain them well. If you are personally passionate about an argument, and it shows your speaker points will likely be higher (this goes for affirmatives as well). I tend to think arguments about identity in debate are important, and play an important part in effecting the community. This being said most of my experience is with the "high theory" side of K's. Regardless of what kind of critical argument you read, I will **NOT** do the work for you. Tell me what your K is, why it matters, and why I should vote for you. K's should not be a sketchy attempt to dodge clash, find a way to clash with your opponent and make the debate productive for everyone. I won't kick the alt for you, most K tricks while cheap shots are acceptable.


 * T/FW--**I treat framework debates like I would any topicality debate. Be sure to impact out anything you go for otherwise I'll probably prefer their impacts. Reverse voting issues are dumb, but I'll still vote for them if done well. If against a non-traditional affirmative try to provide an interpretation where they could still raise there issue, and not out right exclude them. It will be an uphill battle if you come in with the "non-traditional affirmative are wrong" mindset. Otherwise treat T/FW like a DA, I want to see how they link, what that does, why that's bad, and why I should care.


 * Theory--**Theory is often not enough for me to vote for you unless there is a serious violation or the other team just dropped it. Give me examples of how they violate and how that is effecting you. I have a high threshold for these arguments; however, am more often convinced by the "drop the argument, not the team" plea for theory.

=General=
 * Flashing is not prep
 * please clash
 * jokes are cool
 * caring about your arguments is cool
 * don't be mean
 * don't exclude people
 * don't discriminate against people
 * have fun
 * be chill

I you have any questions: ask before round or email: qzapata@uw.edu