Kaut,+Kendall

Some will sound obvious but making this clear for anyone. Speed- All should be fine. I will shout clear if you are unclear but it should be fine. Cross-x: I see no reason it should not be open, but crossx can affect your speaks somewhat, so if your partner has to answer every question for you it looks bad for both of you.

Arguments: T: Evaluate on competing interpretations traditionally though can be persuaded otherwise. I am biased that the aff should be topical, but I have run very untopical affs. Kritiking topicality is fine. Running Reverse Voters is not, if the other team drops I will probably be forced to vote on but running this drains speaks. If not Kritiking T or a team did not drop reasonability or only our case is topical Comes down to why is the world of the affirmative interpretation superior to the negative/vis versa. That means impacting out why brightline matters and why bidirectionallity really matters instead of saying our defintion is more predictable I don't want to be left thinking so what. CP's: Every round should have this or a K in it I think. The neg needs to win that for some reason the CP and net benefit are more desirable than the affirmative. CP competes by being textually or functionally compeitive obvisouly. I will listen to any CP so run consult which I am pretty open minded about, word PIC's whatever just be ready to defend the theory. DA's: They are all fine. I like DA's. K's: I think they are my least favorite argument. I have read Zizek, most security stuff, most cap bad stuff, and am familiar with all big name authors to an extent that I can judge them easily. Though if you are running some obscure K and using terminology I may be a little lost. Win turns case or that alt is more desirable. Framework: Whatever is fine here, I can be persuaded either way. Though if alternative has no solvency I am unlikely to vote that they link to your K impact because they were exclusionary here. Theory: I went for theory quite a bit. It's like T. When that your interpretation is the best, or that the interpretation the other team offers is horrible. I think you probably need an interpretation on most theory besides like PIC's bad. I can be persuaded either way on most issues and find it more compelling if you outline specific abuse and outlinie if you are affirmative ways their specific arguments could be run(example pre round condo). Also explain if you have some crazy new way to solve offense like pre round condo what you mean since everyone seems to think it is something different. Offense: I think that defense can help you if you lack this but you will never win if there is not some offense, unless it is like a case turn with a CP or K. Overviews: Make them flowable at the end: Mag, prob, time, turns case. Though you won't win all. Even if also helps.

I'll defeat policy making(consequentialism) absent any other framework. If you have specific quesions just ask me.