Reed,+JV

(copied-and-pasted from NDCA)

Don't radically change the way you usually debate to please me. I would prefer that you choose to advance your strongest arguments, than to attempt something you're weak at pulling off because you think I'm only receptive to certain types of argument. I like it when a Negative team's strategy against a particular case gravitates toward the best strategy suggested by the literature. I will listen to anything, but I prefer most of all that the Negative's arguments to have a lot to do with the case. I like a good kritik debate. Not especially important on this topic, but I like good politics DAs. I don't like bad agent CPs with a generic net benefit. I will vote for bad agent CPs with a generic net benefit if you win it/them. I prefer most of all for the Negative's arguments to have a lot to do with the case. I prefer kritiks to have a lot to with the case. Also, for your kritiks, you are likely to be better served by slowing down a bit, explaining your link and impact with a few well thought out paragraphs rather than reading more evidence that I am supposed to decipher after the debate. Impact your kritik arguments by explaining why they're more important than the AFF advantages; nuclear war can be outweighed if the impact it is compared to is explained in the right way. If you want to be able to win your theory arguments in front of me, you have to slow down. I'm a pretty good flow, but theory is tough to listen to and pen time is a must. If you don't slow down, I'll probably miss something the other team 'drops' and then you'll be mad at me. This includes arguments about the fairness of this or that framework. I really dislike canned overviews. Knowing certain things that ought to be said in almost every debate and putting them in an overview is ok, but give me some indication that you're actually present for the unfolding circumstances of this particular debate. This is true for running a "one off" strategy as well. I like it if the 1NC engages the 1AC. Change your "one off" to suit the debate. I also think that overviews are a time when its good for you to slow down a bit. By the time the 2NR and 2AR roll around there will probably be only a few meta-issues that need to be talked about in a conceptual way -- these will be where the debate is won or lost and its good to make sure that I understand where you're coming from on them and how you think I ought to resolve them. The overview is a time to do that and it helps me if its a part of the debate where you choose to be especially concerned with communication. Its the part of the debate where our minds must really meet. Also, read whatever cards you need to, but I like fewer, better, cards rather than a lot of cards from Newsmax. If you talk about the qualifications of your authors and how that should influence my consideration of the quality of your evidence, I will probably be receptive to your reasoning. Winning a 'no link' or a 'no internal link' argument really means there is 'no link' to the DA and therefore, ZERO calculable risk of the disad. This can be true whether there is also a question of a link turn or not. Often, though, it is the case that the AFF has a hard time winning a 'no link' argument outright. Unless the Negative's evidence is truly horrid (and there are many times when it is, especially in the 1NC) or no evidence is read at all, the Neg is probably going to be able to convince me that there is some risk of a link. In these instances, an 'offensive' argument like the risk of a link turn will do much to help the Aff. I will try hard to be fair and to get where you're coming from no matter how you speak in front of me or what you choose to say; that's really the most I can offer.