Hello fellow debate enthusiasts, you probably don't have a lot of time to read this, so I'll get straight to the point. I debated four years of CX debate at Caddo Magnet High in Shreveport, Louisiana (which really means I debated in Texas). I participated in the Harvard Round Robin and got a bid by getting to quarters of Harvard my senior year (2014-2015). I work at the UTNIF Debate camp held at UT Austin during the summer. I am currently in my senior year of college at Louisiana Tech University, where I am majoring in chemistry. As for gender, I am non-binary, specifically agender. Any pronouns are fine with me and you may take your pick of Cole or Juliet.

If you came here to see if you could run your weird and unique argument, the answer is yes, specifically I am fine with any word PIC ("the" PIC included) conditionality theory (my favorite), and many many other weird/sketchy K (and policy) arguments.

Short Version
I have debated everything from politics to the craziest K. I was a 2N for 3 years. Freshman year and sophomore year politics was my jam. Junior year anthro was my jam. Senior year as a 2A, Nietzsche Chaos aff I cut was my jam. Long story short, you do you, and I will do me. I am a tabula rasa- blank slate- I will do my best to only vote on things said in the round. All arguments are still arguments so at least answer them. I WILL VOTE ON ANYTHING.

Long Version

Top Level:
Tabula rasa- anything goes (within reason), debate is a game so play it, tech over truth (in most cases- you wont win that the sky is red or the ocean is orange, but you may win a link if the other team allows you to frame/explain their arguments in such a way that you get the link, even if it is just not true). Clarity over speed. Differentiate between tags and the body of the card. Signpost effectively because a happy judge means more speaker points. NEVER be rude to your opponents or your speaker points will get nuked (especially if you attempt to argue offensive arguments such as sexism or racism good). Keep everything professional and be sportsmanlike. Open C-X is cool as long as one partner doesn't dominate. For paperless, I don't count flashing as prep, but be reasonable and don't steal prep. Stick to the line-by-line instead of huge overviews for better clash. I'll try to keep my biases to a minimum and will basically evaluate the round as I am told (policymaker, academic, etc.). ALSO, bonus speaker points if you make funny references (or references to some of my favorite shows- i.e. Steven Universe, South Park, Adventure Time, Rick and Morty). A little humor never hurt anyone, but don't be disrespectful.

Case:
I love a good case debate with lots of clash. I think case is undervalued a lot these days and usually is underdeveloped. A hugely mitigated case can win you the round. I'm okay with generic impact defense and internal-link take-outs, but never forget analytics. Always point out logical fallacies or exaggerations made by the opponent. Not just for case either; this can apply to other off-case arguments, too.

Disads:
I love disads, but the internal link is where most disads fall apart. True links and true impacts are better than probable (or really, improbable) impacts, but the truth of anything is up for debate, as it should be. Always answer turns the case argument, because they can be damning. Bonus points for case-specific disads.

Counterplans:
Counterplans are awesome, but I'm willing to give the aff some leeway on theory for abusive counterplans like word PICs and process counterplans. On severance and intrinsic perms, I default to rejecting the argument and not the team (if theory is brought up). Again, case-specificity is amazing and will impress me.

Kritiks:
I can follow most critiques pretty well. That being said, don't expect me to do alt work for you. Alt work is the most important thing. Do all your tricky tricky K tricks but explain and impact them. K affs are fine too, but get ready for them framework debates. Please do not mispronounce your author the K is based around (Nietzsche for one).

Theory/Topicality:
Don't be blippy on theory. Slow down. If you don't, I can't flow and that means I may miss a crucial argument. You will get an extra speaker point for actually understanding theory and not reading blocks, but engaging in the warrants of education, fairness, predictability args, etc. RVI's are probably a waste of time. Potential abuse is a voter because its about competing visions of debate, but in-round abuse is also pretty persuasive. Don't just say reasonability - I don't know what it means to be reasonable.

Performance:
I haven't seen much performative debate, but as long as you follow relatively the same guidelines as for everything else (well-warranted explanations and lots of clash) there won't be any problems.

Obviously, I probably forgot something, so if this doesn't answer your questions, you can always ask me during the round :)

Policy Debate Paradigm:

Overview:

The things you are probably looking for:

Speed: I’m fine with whatever you are comfortable with--no need to try to impress me.

Performance: I do not mind a performance but make sure the performance is tied directly to the case and purpose of the debate. I am NOT some old fart, but I am a bit old school with a blend of progressive ideology.

Pre-dispositions: Please do not make arguments that you do not understand/cannot explain in order to fill the time or to confuse the opponent—I will definitely take notice and probably will not vote for you. Keep things well researched and logical and everything should be fine.

Sportsmanship: Please always be respectful of your opponents. Mean-spiritedness is not a way to show me you’re winning. Even though I will always vote for the better arguments, if you display signs of cruelty towards your opponent, your speaker points will suffer.

****Make sure you have great links…nothing worse than sitting through a round where no one understands how any of the arguments relate to the topic*********

Specifics:

Disadvantages: Unless if your strategy is extremely sophisticated/well thought out/well-rehearsed (I have encountered quite a few when I competed), I think you should always run at least 1 DA.

· The Counterplan: If done well, and the strategy around them is logical and thought-out, these are generally winners. If done poorly and you just inserted one to fill the time, I will be sad and bored.

· Procedurals/Topicality: I love a good meta-debate, and I am open to these if you guys have a solid strategy around these arguments (for example: if your opponents are illogical/made mistakes, point that out to me). However, I usually see T’s used as generic fillers, and I will not vote for a generic filler.

· The Kritik: Love Ks if done well and showcases your knowledge of the topic and argument. However, if I can sense that you don’t know what you’re talking about, running a K might hurt you.

Overall, have fun ( I understand how stressful this event can be), show me you're prepared, and always try to learn something.

Lincoln-Douglas, Big Questions Debate, and Public Forum Debate Paradigm:

My job as a judge is to be a blank slate; your job as a debater is to tell me how and why to vote and decide what the resolution/debate means to you. This includes not just topic analysis but also types of arguments and the rules of debate if you would like. If you do not provide me with voters and impacts I will use my own reasoning. I'm open all arguments but they need to be well explained.

My preference is for debates with a warranted, clearly explained analysis. I do not think tagline extensions or simply reading a card is an argument that will win you the debate. In the last speech, make it easy for me to vote for you by giving and clearly weighing voting issues- these are summaries of the debate, not simply repeating your contentions! You will have the most impact with me if you discuss magnitude, scope, etc. and also tell me why I look to your voting issues before your opponents. In terms of case debate, please consider how your two cases interact with each other to create more class; I find turns especially effective. I do listen closely during cross (even if I don't flow), so that is a place to make attacks, but if you want them to be fully considered please include them during your speeches.

Email: dhbroussard1763@gmail.com

Debated for Caddo Magnet 2014-2018

Assistant Coach @ Caddo Magnet

Law Student at LSU Paul M. Hebert Law Center

General

Email chain: nathan.jagot@gmail.com

Prep ends when the speech doc is saved/flashed.

Don't take too long while you're "sending the doc over" and still typing.

Don't clip.

Evidence quality > evidence quantity.

Tech v. Truth is very much over-debated and over-theorized and I'm not sure why it is. If your evidence is correct/accurate about how things operate and your internal links are logical, then you're in the clear. Truth claims warrant a certain amount of technical skills to be won, just as technical arguments need a good deal of truth in reality to be won.

Debate's stressful. Be kind.

Play smart. Be scrappy.

A few of my debate coaches and people who helped shape how I approach everything: Neill Normand, Kasi & Jonathan McCartney, Sam Gustavson, Ian Dill, Darius White, Calen Martin, Cole Allen, Ethan Courtman, and Jake Crusan.

Frame your arguments:

If you can tell me what the central points of the debate are in the final rebuttals, make effective arguments and prove why you're winning, you will most likely win the debate. I think line by line is good, but that you also need to keep in mind the big picture/nexus question for the debate. Being wax poetic is especially good (but not necessary), but tell me what's most important and why, and explain it. "Even if" statements are also really useful in this situation, and be sure to use competing claims and why making the decision for you should be easy even if you're not winning the other/most important parts of the debate.

Be strategic:

Embedded clash is important. For argument extensions, make sure you have a claim, warrant, and an impact. Make sure you use this to your advantage and point out interactions between different arguments, be smart in pointing out double turns, etc.

Clarity > speed:

I'd rather hear a very engaging 4-5 off debate that has a variety of winning 2NRs against a certain aff, rather than a team who reads 8-10 off just to scare the other team. I'm not as inclined to the "throw 9 off at the wall to see what sticks" strategies. Not to be frank, but if you know you can beat an aff without going all out, do just that and make each component of the debate that much more convincing.

Slow down on blocks and analytics, because they're going to be the point in the debate where I really start paying attention to the arguments at hand and seeing how they function (also the point in the debate where you should explain them as such). Being efficient and prepared rather than fast and blippy until the 2NR is better than not.

Line by line is important:

This is very important and I think some debaters sadly forget about. Answer arguments in the order in which they appear - if "they say (x), but (x)" statements are helpful in this instance. Clean flows = good flows = organized debates = good debates.

CX:

CX should be treated as another speech. Write down your questions beforehand and have a strategy. Some judges flow CX, I tend to stray away of that, but I may star an argument a team mentions something multiple times or if an argument seemed to be critical for any particular side during CX. If an important argument is an effective turning point for the debate in CX, point it out in later speeches. Use your time wisely.

Critical Affirmatives:

I'm finding myself frustrated with a lot of these types of affirmatives. The 1AC should ground itself with a foundational disagreement with resolutional action (depending on the way the topic is worded) - meaning a solid, specific topic link - and go from there about debating it. Not doing so will likely result to me just voting negative on T. Debates where the affirmative identifies a problem with resolutional action and uses that as offense against framework/T-USfg are much more interesting than stale debates that recycle old K-affs that change 1-2 cards to fit the topic.

***I think for topics where the resolution mandates the USfg reduces something negative it does (like restrict immigration or reduce arms sales), reading an aff with a plan is much more legitimate than not reading a plan.

***Please ask questions about this. But, if I were debating and reading this paradigm, I'd stick with a plan.

T-USfg:

I think this is the most legitimate strategy against planless affs. Though it's a legitimate claim that the aff not using the USfg as an agent is unfair, you need to explain why in terms of why it's bad for normative debate practices and why it's bad that you can't engage with the aff as well as you could with one that had a specific policy proposal.

Fairness is an impact in itself, but that should be explained in terms of what unfairness is, how the affirmative makes it worse, and then funnel into discussion of other "greatest hits" impacts on the flow.

Make sure your TVA is logical and at accesses the affirmative's offense, and the aff answers need to be logical and established in order for me to not vote on it.

Well-thought out aff impact turns to T/Framework are convincing to me if executed effectively.

Framework should also be debated in the context of every aff - don't just read the same overview you do for every K aff. Specific overviews + reasons to reject the aff = higher speaks and more of a chance I'll vote for you.

Case:

You NEED to engage case. Smart analytics on case are just as good as impact turns/no solvency arguments. Make sure to utilize it, it's there for a reason. Interact with it, don't forget it. Scrap the 2-3 card DA that you won't extend past the 1NC and put some of that time and effort on case.

Good case debates about the warrants of the aff, internal link strength, sensibility, etc. are good. Debating case makes you better.

I like impact turns. I like it when teams read impact turns specific to the aff.

Spark = silly. I won't even bother telling you how silly it is---I'll give you my professors' emails and let you take it up with them.

Topicality:

Caselists = good.

Don't get bogged down in the non-essential details.

Competing interps when actually competitive = good.

Reasonability against arbitrary/asinine interps that are semi-ridiculous = 100% will vote on it.

Counterplans:

Long text = slow down.

Specific PICs are good, I like them. Debate them well.

Consult and conditions counterplans are fine as long as you defend them as you're supposed to practically and theoretically. Don't get too carried away.

Make sure it's actually competitive---this means it needs to access not only the impacts of the advantage, but the rest of the advantage itself.

Disadvantages:

The DA should have specific links to what the aff is talking about, or at least a claim that what the aff is fiating will cause what you say it will because it's that large of a policy.

Your block work on the DA should be thorough explanation, as well as lots of cards that prove your argument(s). Specific links/analysis to the aff are highly appreciated.

Lots of cards + lots of analysis = extra good.

Kritiks:

Being from a relatively small school, I understand their strategic value. If you think there may be a risk that I don't know what you mean, don't use buzz-words and be sure to explain your args well.

Couple of K things I value:

Link Contextualization---You absolutely need to win a link to the affirmative. Generic links rarely grab my attention, unless the aff just mishandles it completely. A K 1NC that has mechanism and content links to the aff (links to the aff's process, either K-based or state-based, depending on the type of aff) is better than a K 1NC that has the link arguments "state + scenario analysis bad," without mentioning the aff's advantages. A smart 2NR will go all-in on 1 or 2 solid links with clear impacts. Links should be able to turn case without winning the alternative (even though you should still win your alt), and should each have an impact-level claim that are distinct from the other links and that can independently win you the debate. But, you need to win the alternative to win the debate, tell my why it resolves your links specific to the aff and any other link you may read - this is where the links that fit the aff best come in. I'd rather hear the 2NR go for 2 solid links rather than 3-4 not-so-good links.

Framework---a decisive win on framework will make me much more likely to vote for you, regardless if you're aff or neg.

Theory:

I'll consider theory only if it is severely mishandled/conceded by the other team. I think having it as your A-game strategy isn't as strategic, but don't be discouraged and think you can't go for it in front of me, just remember there are certain times and places for those debates.

Conditionality is bad if an absurd number of advocacies are in the 1NC (more than 4 is questionable, but I'm open to a debate on whether or not that is true), but make sure to contextualize your theory blocks to the debate at hand and tell me why what they did in round is bad and incentivizes worse debates for everyone else. Tell me more of a story about what they did, why they should lose, and what your model of debate looks like under a certain interpretation (that isn't just repeating your interpretation you read in the 2AC/2NC).

Final rebuttals:

These should be used to write my ballot. Easy ways to do this are to do the "final review of the debate" at the top of the 2NR/2AR and then get into the substance/nuance of individual arguments you're winning on the flow.

If Debating In Louisiana:

You're on the clock. You can thank me after the round, don't use your speech time for it.

Explain your arguments well. Answer your opponents' arguments well. I judge LD sometimes in-state because of tab-based restraints and something I've noticed is a severe lack of clash in these debates, and I think forcing yourself to interact with the other team's arguments is generally a good thing in debate.

Good luck and have fun!

I am a former policy debate from Parkway High School in Bossier City, Louisiana. I am currently a coach for Parkway High School in Bossier City, Louisiana.

I am more likely to vote for a policy option than a Kritik or Kritikal Affirmative.

I have always liked a good Topicality debate as well as traditional disad/counterplan combos.

Ok with open cx, I want to be in on the e-mail chain because I cannot flow spreading as I once could. I will ask you to slow down or be clearer if I cannot hear/understand what you are saying.

I also do not tolerate post-rounding. If you would like feedback, you should listen respectfully and ask appropriate questions. Otherwise, your speaker points and ranks will be consequently impacted.

So, I accidentally deleted my account recently. Tabroom helpdesk was more than helpful and recovered my account (thank you tabroom). However, the damage was done, and my old paradigm is floating somewhere in the digital aether. I really do not feel like re-writing my paradigm, as it was easily the most exceptional paradigm ever written -- largely due to the fact I am the greatest at judging and no one can convince me otherwise. Therefore, what follows is an abridged version of my impeccable judging style; if this does not satisfy your questions, feel free to ask me before the round or via email.

Debated policy for Caddo Magnet 2015-2019

Louisiana Tech - Class of '22

Assistant coach for Caddo Magnet

Currently teaching Theology and Physical Science at Providence Classical Academy, Bossier City, LA

Email: palmer0110@gmail.com

General:

Don't be rude or mean, please.

Don't take too long flashing.

Be honest. Don't misrepresent your evidence, don't clip, and don't steal prep time.

Quality over Quantity in both evidence (good evidence > more evidence, unless somehow the quality of the argument is contingent on the quantity, so something like demonstrating a scientific or expert consensus could maybe warrant this) and in arguments

I LOVE really good analytical argumentation. I'd prefer a logically sound analytic to a boat-load of cards you hardly utilize any day. On this note, if it is a debate wherein many cards are being read even into the rebuttals (like a Heg debate or something), my decision will be highly influenced by the evidence quality.

(To be Continued)

Generally prefer policy affs and non theory neg arguments

Spread but not past comprehension

The biggest thing you need to understand about me to win the round is that I am lazy. I am going to choose the easiest ballot possible, don't make me do any work plz.

This paradigm is written largely for policy debate although most of it should be applicable to LD as well. One quick tidbit for the LDers, I view LD as single person policy debate, the only rules are speech times / speech order, anything else is based on what you tell me in the round.

Email: wponder01@gmail.com

Background: I'm currently employed at CenturyLink as a corporate strategy specialist, I have an undergraduate degree in finance from Louisiana Tech University, and will complete an MBA there this fall. I did LD at Ruston High School from 2012-2016, and since then I have judged / coached periodically.

Speed: You can go as fast as you want on the internals so long as you are clear. The only thing I ask is that you slow down on the tags in cites. Say your tags / cites like you are speaking to your grandparents (not literally, but you get what I mean.)

Speaker Points: These are super arbitrary to me. I start at a 28, and if I think you did good enough for me to want you to make it to out rounds I'll go higher, and vice versa for lower. Things that will increase your speaker points include, but are not limited to:

- being a decent human being

- making me laugh

- making the round interesting to judge (not just arguing the most generic positions)

K's: If you run a K you need to win the alt. I do not like reject alts. I want to see some kind of policy alternative or at the very least something grounded in reality that could actually happen. I'll vote for pretty much anything, reading a reject alt isn't an automatic loss, but I tend to like policy alts better.

T / Theory: Don't run it unless you are willing to go for it in the 2NR. I fully understand that sometimes you are losing T / Theory and other args are better, but if you are winning it, or its your best chance of winning you better go for it. Also if you want me to vote for T / Theory it better be the only thing you go for in the last speech.

Other Misc. Things:

- I evaluate off util unless told otherwise.

- I don't like new off case positions in the 2NC, or add-ons in the 2AC. I think its because it's just because I did LD, and we only had one constructive speech each, but unless you are reading theory, or some kind of K based on something they did in their second speech I'd prefer you not.

- Creating a speech doc is prep time, getting set up to speak is prep time, the only thing I don't count is when you are literally passing the flash drive / sending the email. In a perfect world, I would let you guys do infinite prep, but I really hate when tournaments go late, and debaters tend to move really slowly if I don't do this.

- I don't like the thing where your partner speaks during your speech and tells you what to say. I understand sometimes an interjection can be necessary, and I'm not going to tell you not to, but if it's excessive I will probably dock speaks.

As a small town Louisiana congressional debater, I have grown weary of the very racist, sexist, transphobic and ableist argumentation that has been presented. Do not replicate the errors of a few unsavory senators who put their own sense of "fun" before other debaters' well being, or I will knock down your "speaking points" and we will need to discuss proper conduct after the round. However, as long as the rhetoric presented in the debating round does not cross the line of basic kindness (if you are making the other team very sad and you continue despite their requests), I will evaluate the arguments.

I am a big fan of when debaters follow very closely the "line" "by" "line" method of rebuttal in which each argument on a line is matched up to a counter-argument on the same line, as such:

Flow 1 Flow 2

Nukes bad Nukes good

In general, I will base my decision off of the facts presented in each round instead of my "personal opinions" formed in the world outside of debate (which does not technically exist during a debate round) to the best of my ability. In the words of a certain Senegali leek saleswoman, "I will not magically summon new arguments or fill in large holes in arguments after the round because I do not believe

The frame debate:

I have defended the "planless" affirmative. I have defended the "planful" affirmative. On the framework debate, I will admit that, while I am partial to affirmatives that engage the resolution creatively (or slap it out of the round entirely), I believe there are powerful topicality-stock-issue arguments that prove why adherence to the resolution is better for debaters or the debate community. Any standard, be it fairness, education, or fun, can be a round-winner as long as you explain what it means and impact it out. On the aff side, I am particularly convinced by the impact turn genre of argument. The more specific this impact turn is to your affirmative, the more likely I am to vote on it. Remember, as a judge I will find it easier to vote if you provide a clear impact calculus for your impact, just as in a debate between more traditional teams reading the advantage or disadvantage

The disadvantage:

Quite simple. Impact calculus is a real round-winner and I like it. I understand specificity of links/scenarios is hard. A disadvantage which consists of "politics good plan flip nuclear bomb" is not enough. You should use evidence, and highlight the relevant parts of the card in a way that does not completely obfuscate its meaning. Here is an example of very poor highlighting:

The plan uses the economy that means extinction tonneson in 10?

Weizsäcker & Wijkman, 18, Ernst Ulrich von Weizsäcker is a German scientist and politician. He was a member of the German Bundestag and currently serves as co-president of the Club of Rome jointly with Anders Wijkman. Ernst Ulrich von Weizsäcker & Andres Wijkman, 2018, [“Come On! Capitalism, Short-termism, Population, and the Destruction of the Planet”, Club of Rome, https://link-springer-com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-1-4939-7419-1.pdf]//ARK2

The Failure of the Market Doctrine In the preceding section, it was argued that capitalism became arrogant once it was the only game in town. The period since 1989 was also the period during which the finance sector extended its domination over the worldwide economy. Prior to the collapse of communism, the most powerful private sector actors included the big manufacturing, mining and service corporations, as well as large banks and insurance companies. But by 2011, 45 of the top 50 transnational corporations were not producing goods or services at all, but were banks or insurance companies.16 Gradually, financial corporations became major shareholders and the real stewards of the productive companies. Shareholder value and returns on investment (RoI) became favourite expressions in the business world. Big investors would give the CEOs of manufacturing or service companies instructions on the minimum RoI to be achieved. Typically, the goal everything was intended to serve was the short-term quarterly report, a matter of weeks. One could perhaps tolerate such an inversion of power, from the state to the corporations to the owners of capital, if the whole system had remotely lived up to its claims of ‘lifting all boats’ and creating universal prosperity. But, as Graeme Maxton and Jørgen Randers17 write, today’s capitalism is actually making many things worse, both for the environment and for people. Maxton and Randers name a great number of dangerous failures: climate change, pollution (especially of the oceans), resource depletion and biodiversity loss; poverty, inequality and social friction; and unemployment, especially for the young. Civil, religious and territorial wars are also increasing along with terrorism, partly as a result of these endemic problems. These multiple crises are driving mass migrations of refugees. Finally, geopolitical friction is also rising. Many of the wars in recent decades have implicitly been about access to the resources needed to fuel economic growth, notably oil and water. Such wars, ironically, both push social and environmental problems further down the agenda and exacerbate them. Most of the migrants across Asia, as well as those from the Middle East and North Africa, are leaving areas riven by conflict and ravaged by poverty and resource destruction. Maxton and Randers see this daunting package of problems as the result of the current economic system. All of them have the same basic cause: ‘the desire for endless consumption growth without due concern for the impacts on the environment and inequality’. The capitalist incentive structure rewards cost cutting and shortterm profits. It also ‘generates constantly rising labour productivity and, unless it also creates a sufficient number of new jobs, this increases long-term joblessness’. Extreme free-market thinking is at the root of the damage humanity is inflicting on the planet. ‘The current economic system requires a steady rise in the throughput of raw materials... and, according to such thinking, the oceans, forest ecosystems, and polar ice have no economic value beyond the resources they can provide – the cost of the damage done to them tends to be completely ignored’.18 Such views are shared by a broad range of analysts and experts. Jean Ziegler writes that our current problems and disasters are chiefly caused by unbridled capitalism.19 Even mainstream economists have come to the conclusion that markets do nothing to reduce inequality among people – quite the reverse. One of the most prominent economists who shares this view is Joseph Stiglitz, a new member of the Club of Rome.20 And Thomas Piketty has published a deep historic analysis of the functioning of capitalism demonstrating that poverty eradication has simply never happened under the rule of capital.21

The counter-plan:

Even though my home event of big questions has yet to hear of a "plan," much less a "counter-plan," I

Updated: 10/3/23

I debated for the University of Oklahoma for a year, and I have been involved in the activity (to a lesser extent recently) for a total of 7 years now.

=

=

One of my biggest things is being flexible ideologically, so I actively suppress any pre-existing bias toward or against K Affs or Affs with Plans. I like both formats and have used both formats. Do what you do, and do it well.

Add me to the email chain please: (drcaddodebate@gmail.com). Feel free to email me with questions after the round.

-

-

-

TL:DR - I'll vote on any argument whether it's five minutes of heg bad (or good) in the 1NR or a well executed framing argument in the last ten seconds of the 2AR. Write the ballot for me and explain what you think the nexus question of the debate is, and why you best answer that question. My default role is tabula rosa, followed by adjudicator. If you believe I should also be an educator or policymaker, etc., explain why.

-

My own reservations concerning specific arguments:

Framework:I think that every team should have some position on framework whether they have a plan or not. Fundamentally, it is a "debate about debate"; and since you're a part of the activity, you should have several ideas about what it means to affirm a resolution.

K's: I read the K in college, so I am familiar with a lot of the literature. Framework is very important.

CP's: Well-thought out counterplan strategies are awesome.

DA's: Well-structured, contextual disads are great. I find the link debate to be most important.

T: T is T. Don't drop it. I am new to the topic, so I probably won’t have any bias to follow the community consensus on topicality.

Theory: Once upon a time, I read A-Spec.

Condo: I like condo debates.