Campbell,+Cole

1. I debated four years at Montgomery Bell. I'm more accustomed to policy arguments, but I can be persuaded by just about anything as long as you explain the warrants and don't just extend taglines.
 * General stuff:**

2. I'm not very familiar with this topic, so just bear that in mind when explaining the warrants of the impacts for your aff, if that's what the debate comes down to.


 * Critical affs:** I generally think that plans are good, but I could certainly still vote for a planless aff. If you don't use a plan, then you should have good responses to "topical version" or "defend most of the aff with a plan" arguments.


 * Kritiks:** You should probably focus most on the impact debate. If you go for your impacts outweighing, you should spend a lot of time mitigating the impacts of the case. Otherwise, I can also be persuaded that education, ontology, etc. come first.


 * T and theory:** Generally, you need to give a warrant as to why the impact of the violation is substantial, or I will probably just default to reasonability. A good argument to make in that case is that the impact of the violation outweighs the education lost by having a T/theory debate. When it comes to impacts, I can be persuaded by fairness, but portable skills arguments that are well explained and specific to the round are ideal. I went for theory a lot in high school, so don't be afraid to go for it as long as your link and impacts are strong.


 * DAs and CPs:** The more specific to the aff, the better. When it comes to DAs, you would do well to explain in depth your links and internal links. Most DAs are honestly pretty absurd in a real-world context, and in the absence of good warrants for your cards, the aff's evidence will probably trump yours. If you're not sure about the quality of a DA against a particular aff, you should probably either drop it early on or have a good CP to run it with.