I am a Stock Issue judge. I prefer to see the Neg directly clash with the plan by taking out Significance/Harm, Inherency, or Solvency and also discussing the workability of the plan. I do not tend to believe that Fiat inherently means every aspect of the plan just happens without planning or discussing the specifics. This means that if your plan costs money, prove that the USFG can afford it. Prove that the agency can accurately enforce the action and that no other oversight is needed. This is Policy Debate and I expect to have a well written policy to test. I enjoy Disadvantages that directly link and have a clear link chain. These should not jump from “China bad” to Nuclear War with no work-up
done in the Internal Link chain. Avoid using I tend to flow Plan Inclusive Counterplans Aff unless the Neg can prove that there is a substantial reason that the Aff cannot solve and the PIC is needed. Solvency for Counter Plans must be unique to CP. This is Policy Debate, and this is UIL, know your audience and know your organization. I do not like Kritiks or K theory and will assume Aff can Perm a K unless there is a specific reason why they cannot. NO K AFF. Impact Calculus is the most important here, guide me through the round, let me know what flows where, I do not like judge intervention so make me intervene as little as possible on the flow.