Crater,+Reed

I debated for four years in high school, went to nationals a few times. I havent debated since 2014 but i have been judging and am a assistant coach for BVN high school I have read a variety of arguments in debate and will listen to any arguement. in terms of "paragim" I think that I default policy maker. My favorite debates are deep T debates, k debates, and huge impact turn debates like Heg and dedev. I have never been in or watched a debate of high schoolers who spoke too quickly for me to understand, but have been in plenty where the debaters sacrificed clarity for speed. if you are hard to understand because you sacrificed clarity for speed it wont be my fault if you think you made arguments and I dont have them written down and you lose. debate is as much about communication as it is about good arguments Ks. I read Ks a lot in high school and a good critical argument is one of my favorite things to hear in a debate. That being said I also have a good background knowledge for almost anything; I am a philosophy major at the University of Kansas so you can pull out your deeply metaphysical K infront of me if you want and I will be able to understand the vocabulary and concepts but I will expect good explanations of how/what specifically about the aff links and how the alt resolves those things. This means that there should be some good explanation of why the alt is preferable to the status quo and what the implications of the impacts are to me and/or to the aff.

CPs.  I was not much of a counterplan reader in debate and am not very familiar with the counterplans on this topic either. I don't really have much to say here except make sure that you read the plan text clearly so that i know what the plan is and make sure that there is clear analysis on why the counterplan solves the aff.

 T. I love T debates if they are done well. I default to competing interpretations and I don't think that in round abuse is necessary to win the debate, although I think that in round abuse is certainly a helpful argument to be made. definition and standards comparison is a must to win this debate and a list of topical affs is really important for the negative. Without those two things the threshold I have for voting on reasonability drops significantly.

 Critical Affs. I think that critical affs can be very good arguments. I think that the k aff should have some focus on the resolution because i think that predictability and the negative ground are important for debates and if the affirmative does not provide either of those things then there should be some good reasons why.