Sturgis,+Regina

I have judged 24 debates on this topic thus far. I have been apart the debate community for 4 years I have two years of colligate debate experience and 2 years of coaching critical and traditional teams  Speech :  Make sure that your speech is organized well and that you are paying attention to clarity. I prefer for the you to read your tags slower and louder than the rest of you evidence so I can make sure I have properly flowed your arguments. For all intended purposes sign posting is imperative if you want your arguments to be flowed correctly. Cross application is something I almost never see don't correctly be precise tell me which argument and flow you are referring to a create some sort of analysis in how the arguments relate. Be very tentative on micro debates because this can either cause you to win or lose a ballot make sure you understand what the two arguments or pieces of evidence means and give a comparative analysis why your arg is better or why you access something they don't and for this level of debate I do believe that speech organization is very important to your overall performance evaluation. Be Warned: Do not card clip or introduce any piece of evidence that is not cited. If you do engage in any kind of cheating in the round there will be penalties I will either lower your speaker points or default the ballot to the other team.  Cross Examination: 1.) Look at the judge when answering and asking questions.

2.) Be respectful to your opponent

3.) Make sure that if it is your cross examination you are asking majority of the questions and if you are being cross examined make sure that you are answering majority of the questions. If not your speaker points will be deducted  Kritiks:  I enjoy critical debate and I am well versed in this area. I am familiar with and understand very critical authors from Karl Marx, Frank B Wilkerson, Michael Foucault, Friedrick Nietzsche. To win a K debate in front of me you must express the link to the action, result, or discourse of the plan, have multiple links including specific links to the plan, usually the k links harder to the status quo than it does the Plan so no link analytics can be strong arguments and carry lots of weight in my evaluation. I am compelled more by structural impacts on the K but terminal impacts are also always good to have. You can call me old school but the only the best way to frame impact debate is through a tentative impact calculus and impact interaction (How does you impacts outweigh your opponent's and how can you access their impacts ex. root cause claims) Alternatives like do nothing or reject the aff are not winning arguments. Alternative solvency cards are also helpful; I recommend that you have a way to solve for the link of you own k. If you want to persuade me find a way for the alt to solve the impacts of the aff. Usually a perm text that emphasizes how the aff solves for the k impacts can be all the offense the aff needs to win. Having a ROB argument isn't necessary but I do want you to tell me why I should vote for you, what does voting for you accomplish.  Performance:  I am a performance debater in college. I debate about structural issues such as Black Feminism and Anti Blackness. I believe performance debate is a way to make the personal political and politicizing social problem that commonly are looked over by civil society. I love any performance: narratives, storytelling, spoken word, spits, singing raps etc. Performances should be used as a method of solvency Make sure if you are running a performance aff that it is relating to the topic, IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE TOPICAL but it MUST resolve the topic.  Framework: I do not think that traditional policy frameworks that exclude kritiks because of an "exploded research burden" are persuasive, do your research. I think that clash on framework is imperative. There must be an offensive reason to vote the other team down. Be creative with your standards and remember that your voters are your offensive reason to prefer your interpretation of Debate. Stay away from interpretations that exclude alternative forms of debate this is an activity that has been evolving you should adapt and engage. !!! Performance Teams!!! Your aff is already a framework so you technically are ahead on this flow the neg should prove why your framework is flawed and your 1 ac is full of offense and defense to framework so start using it as such and then extend those same answers through THE WHOLE DEBATE. If you have an advocacy statement you will lose if you do not implement a plan, then have an offensive justification. Kritiks on Debate are competitive arguments if there is clash on the flow. Please don't just say the government is oppressive that's not offense. As a critical/ performance debater it's your job to explode the limits of what's allowed because of the traditional and exclusive nature of debate.  Topicality: I have a very low threshold on T. Reasonability arguments are very compelling when the aff is grounded in topic specific education, but I love topical version of aff arguments. Standards and voters are your offense on this flow it carries the most weight in my deliberation I do look at this flow very technical that means you must address every argument and all arguments that you want me to weigh must be in all speeches.  Theory: <span style="font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 23px; vertical-align: middle;">Theory is not a compelling unless the opposing team is overtly abusive most debaters run these arguments improperly anyway. For issues, such as the status of off case arguments I am not a fan of multiple worlds good arguments or excessive conditionality over four off. Severance perms I think are very abusive I usually just reject the argument. Pics and piks are competitive and should be engaged but if the aff proves solvency I defer aff. Even though I feel like you should engage the actual content of the argument I will vote on Theory if the offense is substantial enough. <span style="font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"> Counterplan: <span style="font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 23px; vertical-align: middle;">The neg must prove the cp can solve for aff impacts, have a net benefit, and be mutually exclusive. I give the aff a lot of weight on the permutation intrinsic perms are compelling especially if what is added is not mutually exclusive with the aff. <span style="font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"> Disadvantage: <span style="font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 23px; vertical-align: middle;">Politics Disadvantages are usually not persuasive but in the very current event Donald Trump winning President Elect I think those arguments are now more relevant. Please do an impact calculus it's important to this argument specifically in weighing the Disadvantages with the Advantages. To strengthen your probably make sure you have a strong internal link chain. <span style="font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"> Affirmative: <span style="font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 23px; vertical-align: middle;">You have the burden of proof you should defend a method to solve for the status quo in relation to the topic and or the debate space. You must defend a demand, advocacy statement, or plan text. I have a real hard time rationalizing a vote for a aff without some sort of advocacy because I don't know what I'm voting for. This is a quick way to lose on T or Framework. If you don't have clear solvency like relying on Fiat if the neg runs Fiat Bad theory I give the arg weight you must defend the implementation of the aff. Leverage the aff on every flow either through education the aff gives structural or terminal impacts. Try or Die, Moral Obligation and all other impact framing will be good to add to your analysis <span style="font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"> Negative: <span style="font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 23px; vertical-align: middle;">You have the burden of proving the aff is a bad idea offering either a competitive policy option, alternative, or default to the status quo. Engage the aff case because it is preemptive offense that they could leverage against all your impacts. Do research and engage even with critical and performance aff's you can always refute their solvency, rhetoric, representation etc. Please do split the block the 1nr and the 2nc should not cover any of the same arguments. Do not waste your 2nr most often the 1ar drops the entirety of the 1nr because they expect the 2nc and the 2nr to match make strategic implementation on this don't waste an entire 1nr. The 2nr should be offensive and pick 1 or 2 arguments to go for or else you will spread yourself to thin