Khamphoune,+Scott

I debated for 4 years at Bronx Science and now I'm at Stanford. I haven't been in the debate community for a while so I am not familiar with the resolution. I was a 2N and went for both policy and kritikal arguments, so I'm open to whatever you want to go for or run. Just do whatever you're good at of course.
 * I like T debates when they're framed with limits and both teams give me a case list of good affs their interpretation would allow / bad affs that the other team's interpretation would allow
 * I'm more neg leaning on conditionality and most theory questions in general. I would really much prefer substance in counterplan debates and I'm not the one to pull the trigger on theory that easily (unless it's cold conceded and then impacted of course)
 * Politics is really silly, but since all topic disads are non unique, I guess it's the only good disad left. Keep in mind that reading 10 new uniqueness cards in the 1NR won't get you very far with me if you don't extend, explain, and compare the evidence in the 2NR.
 * I went for the security kritik a lot and I think it makes a lot of sense. I'm familiar with most mainstream kritiks, but nothing like Lacan or Psychoanalysis or Derrida whatever. Answer the substance of the K = good. Framework = weak.
 * The best aff arguments against the K in front of me is to really just defend the truth of the 1AC impacts, why they outweigh and turn the K, and an array of impact turns (cap good, realism)
 * Good case debates are cool and a nice change of pace
 * If the 1AR undercovers something or does a tag line extension on an important issue, point it out to me in the 2NR. I'm definitely on the side of protecting the 2NR from blippy 1AR extensions turning into big 2AR stories, but it's your job to direct my attention to it on the flow.
 * I pay attention to CX and you'll get a lot of speaker points from me if you ask smart questions and have ethos. I really really hate rudeness or unpleasant people. If you're against a team that is not as experienced, you will lose points if you overkill it.
 * Collapse down on arguments and make logical analytics! An analytic that's explained, impacted, and sounds overall logical and persuasive will always come before a shallow extension of a piece of evidence that's not explained beyond the tag or compared to the other side's cards or analytic.

Have fun and good luck, Scott

P.S. Any jokes about any of the bronx debaters can only help your speaker points