Director of Debate at the University of Texas

brendonbankey@gmail.com - please add me to your email chain

The 24-25 season will be my 21st season involved in cross-examination debate and my 18th in an NDTCEDA program. I believe that NDTCEDA debate participation is one of the most valuable experiences that a college student can have and continue to be impressed by the intellectual output of the students and coaches in the activity. Having spent the majority of my lifetime in debate programs and in the field of communication studies, I have developed a set of beliefs/presumptions/biases about how to assign a winner in debates. These beliefs are subject to change based on the content and argument coverage in individual debates.

Most broadly stated, I think that debate is a game and that, at a minimum, the resolution should be the focus of debates. I think that all affirmative teams should offer a stable plan/advocacy text, be ready to define what the resolution means, and explain why their 1AC is a prima facie endorsement of the resolution. I think that the negative should refute the 1AC and/or utilize definitional argument to say that the affirmative team should lose because the 1AC is not an example of the resolution.

I will evaluate debates based on arguments presented in the debates. I do not consider myself an expert in the fields of energy policy, climate policy, or economics. I do however think I am capable of recording the arguments in the debate and evaluating how well students utilized experts in the controversy area to develop their claims.

I will generally assume a claim to be true absent counter-arguing. I think that debate is a game where students present logically constructed arguments to outwit their opponents. A complete argument includes a claim (e.g., X causes Y), supporting data (e.g., example, statistics, testimonial), and a warrant (i.e, a logical reason that connects the data to the claim). I believe that it is the obligation of the opponent to indict the opponents claims by attacking the logical reasoning, supporting data, and/or the warrants.

I think debate is a game of execution. I often find myself voting in favor of arguments I do not agree with because they were consistently forwarded in constructives/rebuttals and voting against the team who advocated what I consider to be the correct position because they did not execute the best arguments. I will vote for an argument that doesn’t align with my presumptive ways of thinking about debate if it is properly executed and/or the opponent fails to respond properly to it.

I believe that the most important takeaways from the activity are the ability to engage in definitional argument and the practice of applying ethical systems to make decisions between two imperfect options. As such, I will generally reward teams who define the resolution to favorably support their strategy and/or establish clear win conditions for how to evaluate a close debate between two well-prepared opponents.

I think evidence matters when evaluating topicality and counterplan/alternative competition. In addition to reading evidence for interps/violations/textual competition, debaters should explain why their definitions should be preferred. I will defer to the negative on T or counterplan competition until the aff counter-defines the words. If the aff covers the definitions, the neg must also explain why its definitions are better for a year's worth of debates. I think "does this definition produce better debates?" is a more important question than "is this the most precise interpretation?".

Policy Affs

-I will assume that fiat is durable. Plans can be circumvented but not rolled back.

-I think that plans identify a desired outcome, and that plans could potentially be achieved in a variety of ways. The aff should strategically deploy arguments about normal means to insulate itself from negative characterizations about how the aff would occur. I do not think that normal means is relevant for evaluating the legitimacy of a permutation and/or counterplan competition.

-Affs should identify harms that the action of the plan is sufficient to solve. Affs would be well served to offer an impact that assumes the plan is not adopted by other actors.

-Affs are not strategic if their harms can be solved through Command and Control mechanisms and/or a clever combination of coordinated State Government actions.

-Whether or not the States Counterplan is theoretically legitimate does not absolve the aff from answering that the USFG models state action. The aff would do well to respond/preempt this claim in every 2AC and is living dangerously if it does not have evidence on this question.

-Take prep before the 2AC to make sure you’re answering the correct version of the disad/counterplan/kritik/violation.

Critical Affs

-I accept that affirmatives that critique fiat are a significant genre of affirmative in NDTCEDA debate and believe that many innovations in this genre have made the game more intellectually rigorous. I also recognize that there are many subgenres of critical affirmative and have judged and coached many varieties of these arguments.

-I think that competing interpretation debates are fun and will reward teams who invest in the interpretation debating. I don't think the aff's interps have to be the most predictable as long as they can describe what limits the counter-interps impose on the topic and why they provide a desirable division of ground.

-I would prefer that 2ACs engage the substantive arguments of the 1NC instead of trying to finesse their way out of links.

-Given that we live in a context, it is hard to accept that there are zero strategic choices made in a competitive activity if the affirmative team chooses not to say "USFG should" in the 1AC. It is definitionally self-serving. Self-serving does not mean the aff should automatically lose, just that they should be more realistic about the function of their 1AC in a competitive activity. If the aff does not say "USFG Should," they are deliberately shifting the point of stasis to other issues that they believe should take priority. It is reciprocal, therefore, for the negative to use any portion of the 1AC as its jumping off point and assert that a different point of stasis should take priority.

-The types of critical affirmative teams that I find interesting generally exhibit the following qualities:

—-They offer a stable, contestable advocacy statement.

—-They interpret what it means to meet the burden of proof and argue for a change to the status quo.

—-They maintain theoretical consistency.

—-They think through their counter-interpretation to the negative’s topicality arguments and are prepared to explain the limits/ground provided by the aff’s interpretation and how debates would occur within their interpretation of what it means to meet the burden of proof.

-The types of critical affirmative teams that I do not enjoy very much generally exhibit the following qualities:

—-They lack a clear explanation of what the affirmative and negative burdens are in the given debate contest.

—-They lack theoretical consistency and rely on contradictory warrants. An example of this is when a 1AC begins with an ontological critique, a 1NC criticizes the validity of the ontological claims made in the 1NC, and the 2AC does not validate its original ontological claims but instead responds to 1NC’s position by stating the counter-critique is epistemologically invalid because of the subject position of the evidence author or the negative debaters.

-If the aff ever says in CX or a speech that the advocacy/plan is hypothetically enacted and would materially change the status quo, they do not get to retract this argument to avoid disads. This is true even if the neg does not read framework.

Permutations

-I think about permutations in a very precise way. I do not think it's the only way to think about them but I am unlikely to be persuaded to think otherwise. I think that a plan specifies a desired outcome. There are an unspecified set number of means to achieve the desired outcome. I also think that a counterplan or alternative specifies a desired outcome with a set number of means to achieve that outcome. A permutation asserts that it is theoretically possible for there to be a means of action that satisfies both the outcome of the plan and the counterplan or alternative. A permutation could be expressed as where the set numbers of the aff's and the neg's strategies overlap.

-Keeping the math analogy going, I read a given plan as [plan!] and assume that the aff could be achieved by any of the various processes that produce the outcome the aff desires.

-Permutations are defense. Rarely do they "solve all their offense." It would behoove affs to know what offense they are "no linking" with the perm and what offense the perm does not resolve. This discussion should ideally begin in the 2AC and it must take place in the 1AR.

-A plan is not required to have every word in the resolution in it as long as the plan as written is an example of the resolution. Perms test competition, and are not required to be topical as long as they don’t sever. Affs are entitled to make arguments for why severance and/or intrinsic perms are justified, but these arguments require execution and face an uphill battle.

-Aff teams would do well to think through precise permutation characterizations before the 2AC. I am pro perm texts in the speech doc but it isn’t necessary–”perm do non-competitive parts of the counterplan. The following parts of the counterplan don’t compete and if done would sufficiently resolve the net benefit. [Insert list of the non-competitive parts]” is fine.

-Although I am happy to vote for these arguments when properly explained, "perm do the counterplan" and "perm do the alt" are claims that are often unaccompanied by warrants. I will not vote for these statements unless the aff explains why they are theoretically legitimate BEFORE the 2AR. I am most likely to vote for these arguments when the aff has 1) a clear model of counterplan/alternative competition that justifies such a perm AND 2) an explanation for where the aff and the cp/alt overlap.

Disads

-”Turns the case” and “outweighs the case” are different arguments and should not be lumped together.

-The 1NC impact should not be a 1AC impact.

-The block should utilize its time to indict the quality/specificity of 2AC evidence.

-The block should utilize the disad and the possibility of intervening actors to undermine the 2AR’s narrative that it is “try or die for mitigating extreme environment related impacts.”

-Politics/elections are important generics in the negative arsenal. These positions require storytelling and airtight block execution to fill-in for imperfect evidence and leaps in logic. Politics/elections is exciting when done well but fall apart quickly if the block doesn’t have discipline.

Counterplans

-If the neg goes for a counterplan, they assume the burden of proof.

-Should be functionally AND textually competitive. I am an old 2A and am unlikely to be persuaded of a different interpretation. I think that the requirement of textual competition rewards affs who engage in strategic permutation writing as a buttress against the wide variety of negative counterplans. The requirement of textual competition also mitigates against the most contrived variety of counterplan texts that are strategically written with negative conditional statements that require the aff to make intrinsic permutations.

-The negative is not entitled to counterplans that result in the plan based on the internal federal government process in which it is enacted. Skilled 2NRs can win these positions by using evidence to establish counterplan competition and identifying consistent mistakes in aff execution.

-Conditional worlds forwarded by the negative should not contradict each other. It is fine if positions link equally to the counterplan and the plan but I will be maximum annoyed if the 1NC includes a Consumption/MBI K and the Oil DA.

-I believe that the States Counterplan is a necessary evil to set a functional limit on the topic. Innovative counterplan texts will be at a premium. Be warned: the Lopez path is fraught and full of danger.

-Judge kick is a privilege not a right. Negs have to say the words and out execute the aff. Affs would be well served to anticipate these arguments and begin disputing the legitimacy of judge kick as soon as it gets said.

-Ban the plan can establish uniqueness for a disad that links to the permutation but it does not establish competition/an internal net benefit for a counterplan. Durable fiat is not a reason why ban the plan competes. The burden of proof flips neg when the counterplan is introduced and the negative is required to explain why the permutation is insufficient to resolve the net benefit.

-To answer “Perm Do the Counterplan,” the negative requires at least one of these things:

—-an external net benefit that makes the permutation undesirable

—-a clear argument that the combination of ways to do the could never coincide with any singular combination of ways to the . Perm do the counterplan is legit if any of the possible ways to achieve the desired outcome specified by the plan coincide with any of the possible ways to achieve thee desired outcome specified by the counterplan..

—-Caveat: the negative still gets to out-execute their opponent utilizing their skills in definitional argument.

Kritiks

-If the neg goes for an alternative, they assume the burden of proof.

-I think it is logical for the negative to indict whether it is valuable to endorse market-based instruments as the ideal solution to structural/ecological harms.

-I don’t really understand alternatives that claim to fiat non-governmental action. Fiat is reciprocal is a counterplan justification and not a critique justification because the negative should get the reciprocal ability to change the status quo. That does not necessarily justify the neg’s ability to fiat any array of micropolitical actors/actions.

-Despite my concern with alternative fiat, it does make sense for the neg to endorse certain changes to the status quo (i.e., Command and Control) that are compatible with the K and incompatible with Market-Based Instrument.

-Because debate is a game of establishing win conditions (“If I win X, then I win the debate”) and challenging opponents to answer them, I often find myself voting for framework arguments and PIKs when the 1AR/2AR poorly address these positions.

-I encourage the 2AC/1AR to identify examples of the alternative in negative evidence that would be compatible with the plan and explain that intrinsic perms are justified because of the vague nature of the alternative text/shifting explanation of the alt in the block.

-I will be concerned if the aff doesn’t say ”markets good and/or inevitable” in response to the MBIs K.

-An alternative that takes an extreme action that would overwhelm the action of the plan is susceptible to the permutation.

Topicality

-Is a requirement for the affirmative to meet the burden of proof. If the 1AC plan/advocacy must go outside the parameters of the resolution to resolve its harms, then it disproves the desirability of the resolution.

-Is a voting issue because the negative should not be required to rejoin an affirmative team that has not met its burden of proof.

-Competing interpretations debates are about identifying an interpretation of the resolution that properly limits the resolution while producing a good division of ground. The affirmative can win that its interpretation is good enough for a year’s worth of debates, even if it is not the most limiting.

-The limits standard describes the set number of topical affirmatives within the parameters established by the resolution wording. The ground standard describes what are predictable affirmative and negative strategies within an interpretation (i.e., US v States, MBI v C&C, etc.). The limits standard is generally more important for the neg. The ground standard is generally more important for the aff.

-Affirmative and negative teams should think through what types of affs fall within their interpretation and what types of affs are excluded.

-I am more likely to vote for an arbitrary interpretation that sets a desirable limit on the set number of topical affs than I am to vote for an unlimited interpretation. Arbitrary interpretations must be definitionally supported or dropped in multiple speeches to be a winner (looking at you, “only our case is topical”).

-The aff does or does not meet a given interpretation. It is never “reasonably topical.”

Framework v Critical Affs

-I consider framework debates a known quantity. Although I have spent much of my career encouraging students to engage critical affs on their substantive claims, I accept that some students prefer framework because of concerns that critical advocacies can utilize permutations and/or shift to avoid disad links.

-Please don’t be boring. Your pre-written blocks are boring.

-The neg should be prepared to explain why limits/ground turns the case.

-The aff cannot win by simply flipping the burden of proof and indicting the neg’s interpretation of the resolution. The aff must at all times defend a contestable proposition and establish what it means to meet the burden of proof. If the aff does explain its interpretation/how it meets its own interpretation, then it has not met the burden of proof.

-The neg does not require a TVA or Switch Side solves to win topicality. The neg can win that the aff’s failure to meet the resolution is a sufficient reason to vote negative. That said, TVA/SS are helpful to address Ks of limits/ground centered on the USFG.

-Affs should vet their authors to make sure their claims are incompatible with the TVA. I think "your author says government MBIs” could be good requires 1AR pen time. I don't think that the TVA is a counterplan but I do think that the TVA indicts whether the judge must accept that a shift in the point of stasis away from the resolution is required to solve the Ks of T. I think if the neg wins a TVA is compatible with the 1AC author's claims it substantially deflates the aff's "topic design bad" offense versus T/framework.

Arguments About Community Norms

-I think that teams are entitled to make non-resolutional procedural arguments related to argument style or the content that a ballot should endorse. Teams can present an interpretation and argue why that interpretation should be preferred. If I vote for those strategies my ballot just means that a team did the better debating their interpretation in that debate.

-Debaters undermine their own credibility by making ad-homs against their opponents based on conduct that occurred before the debate began and assuming I will use my ballot to render judgment on an individual debater’s character or actions outside of the debate round I have been assigned by the tabroom to judge. As a State of Texas employee, it is wholly outside of my jurisdiction to judge any individual's conduct outside of the words they say in a debate after the 1AC has started and before the 2AR has ended.

Quarry Lane, CA | 6-12 Speech/Debate Director | 2019-present
Harker, CA | 6-8 Speech/Debate Director | 2016-18
Loyola, CA | 9-12 Policy Coach | 2013-2016
Texas | Assistant Policy Coach 2014-2015
Texas | Policy Debater | 2003-2008 (2x NDT elims and 2x top 20 speaker)
Samuel Clemens, TX | Policy Debater | 1999-2003 (1x TOC qual)

Big picture:
- I don't read/flow off the doc.
- no evidence inserting. I read what you read.
- I strongly prefer to let the debaters do the debating, and I'll reward depth (the "author/date + claim + warrant + data + impact" model) over breadth (the "author + claim + impact" model) any day.
- Ideas communicated per minute > words per minute. I'm old, I don't care to do a time trial of flowing half-warrants and playing "connect the dots" for impacts. 3/4 of debaters have terrible online practices, so this empirically applies even more so for online debates.
- I minimize the amount of evidence I read post-round to only evidence that is either (A) up for dispute/interpretation between the teams or (B) required to render a decision (due to lack of clash amongst the debaters). Don't let the evidence do the debating for you.
- I care a lot about data/method and do view risk as "everyone starts from zero and it goes up from there". This primarily lets me discount even conceded claims, apply a semi-laugh test to ridiculous arguments, and find a predictable tiebreaker when both sides hand me a stack of 40 cards.
- I'm fairly flexible in argument strategy, and either ran or coached an extremely wide diversity of arguments. Some highlights: wipeout, foucault k, the cp, regression framework, reg neg cp, consult china, cap k, deleuze k, china nano race, WTO good, indigenous standpoint epistemology, impact turns galore, biz con da, nearly every politics da flavor imaginable, this list goes on and on.
- I am hard to offend (though not impossible) and reward humor.
- You must physically mark cards.
- I think infinite world condo has gotten out of hand. A good rule of thumb as a proxy (taking from Shunta): 4-6 offcase okay, 7 pushing, if you are reading 8 or more, your win percentage and points go down exponentially. Also, I will never judge kick - make a decision in 2NR.
- 1NC args need to be complete, else I will likely buy new answers on the entire sheet. A DA without U or IL isn't complete. A CP without a card likely isn't complete. A K with just a "theory of power" but no links isn't complete. A T arg without a definition card isn't complete. Cards without any warrants/data highlighted (e.g. PF) are not arguments.
- I personally believe in open disclosure practices, and think we should as a community share one single evidence set of all cards previously read in a single easily accessible/searchable database. I am willing to use my ballot to nudge us closer.
-IP topic stuff - I have a law degree and am a tech geek, so anything that absolutely butchers the law will probably stay at zero even if dropped.

Topicality
-I like competing interpretations, the more evidence the better, and clearly delineated and impacted/weighed standards on topicality.
-I'm extremely unlikely to vote for a dropped hidden aspec or similar and extremely likely to tank your points for trying.
-We meet is yes/no question. You don't get to weigh standards and risk of.
-Aff Strategy: counter-interp + offense + weigh + defense or all in on we meet or no case meets = best path to ballot.

Framework against K aff
-in a tie, I vote to exclude. I think "logically" both sides framework arguments are largely empty and circular - the degree of actual fairness loss or education gain is probably statistically insignificant in any particular round. But its a game and you do you.
-I prefer the clash route + TVA. Can vote for fairness only, but harder sell.
-Very tough sell on presumption / zero subject formation args. Degree ballot shapes beliefs/research is between 0 and 1 with neither extreme being true, comparative claims on who shapes more is usually the better debate pivot.
-if have decent k or case strat against k aff, usually much easier path to victory because k affs just seem to know how to answer framework.
-Aff Strategy: Very tough sell for debate bad, personalized ballot pleas, or fairness net-bad. Lots of defense to predict/limits plus aff edu > is a much easier path to win.

Framework against neg K
-I default to (1) yes aff fiat (2) yes links to 1AC speech act (3) yes actual alt / framework isn't an alt (4) no you link you lose.
-Debaters can debate out (1) and (2), can sometimes persuade me to flip on (3), but will pretty much never convince me to flip on (4).

Case Debate
-I enjoy large complex case debates about the topic.
-Depth in explanation and impacting over breadth in coverage. One well explained warrant or card comparison will do far more damage to the 1AR than 3 new cards that likely say same warrant as original card.

Disads
-Intrinsic perms are silly. Normal means arguments less so.

Counterplans
-I think literature should guide both plan solvency deficit and CP competition ground.
-For theory debates (safe to suspect): adv cps = uniqueness cps > plan specific PIC > topic area specific PIC > textual word PIK = domestic agent CP > ban plan then do "plan" cp = certainty CPs = delay CPs > foreign agent CP > plan minus penny PICs > private actor/utopian/other blatant cheating CP
-Much better for perm do cp (with severance justified because of THEORY) than perm other issues (with intrinsicness justified because TEXT/FUNCT COMP english games). I don't really believe in text+funct comp (just eliminates "bad" theory debaters, not actually "bad" counterplans, e.g. replace "should" with "ought").
-perms and theory are tests of competition and not a voter.
-debatable perms are - perm do both, do cp/alt, do plan and part of CP/alt. Probably okay for combo perms against multi-conditional plank cps. Only get 1 inserted perm text per perm flowed.
-Aff strategy: good for logical solvency deficits, solvency advocate theory, and high level theory debating. Won't presume CP solves when CP lacks any supporting literature.

Critiques
-I view Ks as a usually linear disad and the alt as a CP.
-Much better for a traditional alt (vote neg -> subject formation -> spills out) than utopian fiated alts, floating piks, movements alts, or framework is my second alt.
-Link turn case (circumvention) and/or impact turns case (root/prox cause) is very important.
-I naturally am a quantitative poststructuralist. Don't think I've ever willingly voted on an ontology argument or a "zero subject formation" argument. Very open to circumvention oriented link and state contingency link turn args.
-Role of ballot is usually just a fancy term for "didn't do impact calculus".
-No perms for method Ks is the first sign you don't really understand what method is.
-Aff strategy: (impact turn a link + o/w other links + alt fails) = (case spills up + case o/w + link defense + alt fails) > (fiat immediate + case o/w + alt too slow) > (perm double bind) > (ks are cheating).
-perms generally check clearly noncompetitive alt jive, but don't normally work against traditional alts if the neg has any link.

Lincoln Douglas
-no trix, phil, friv theory, offcase spam, or T args written by coaches.
-treat it like a policy round that ends in the 1AR and we'll both be happy.

Public Forum
-no paraphrasing, yes email chain, yes share speech doc prior to speech. In TOC varsity, points capped at 27.5 if violate as minimum penalty.
-if paraphrase, it's not evidence and counts as an analytic, and cards usually beat analytics.
-I think the ideal PF debate is a 2 advantage vs 2 disadvantage semi-slow whole rez policy debate, where the 2nd rebuttal collapses onto 1 and the 1st summary collapses onto 1 as well. Line by line, proper, complete argument extensions, weighing, and card comparisons are a must.
-Good for non-frivilous theory and proper policy style K. TOC level debaters usually good at theory but still atrocious executing the K, so probably don't go for a PF style K in front of me.
-prefer some civility and cross not devolve into lord of the flies.

QLS 24

USC 28

Email Address (add both on chain plz):zleyi0121@gmail.com ; debate@student.quarrylane.org

I learned everything I know about debate from Chris Thiele - his paradigm is 1000x more detailed than mine will be.

24-25 Updates: I have no idea what this year's high school topic looks like - plz explain the case clear : )

Top Level (TLDR):

- Tech > Truth

- OpenSource is good. Paraphrase is bad

- Speech Doc is mandated. Please set up an email chain before the round starts and send all your cards and evidence for each speech.

- Don't steal prep and time your speech

- English is my second language, but Speed is okay with me (ie: normal high school/college spreading, so don't read dumb theory arg against your opponent pls.) Just be clear and be slower at the tag and analytics.Quality>Quantity.

- Please Line by line the argument. Don't drop arguments and bring up brand-new stuff in your last speech.

- I have no offense with most arguments. You may say, "human extinction is good" or "xx country is evil." I am cool with animal and alien impact as well. At least you should follow the structure of "author+claim+warrants+data+impact."

- Usually would judge kick but prefer getting instruction

- (MS/Novice rounds)

1. I don't believe in the stock issue. Sorry. How people debate in recent TOC/NDT is the only pattern of debate I learned.

2. Collapsing is important: I found many teams choose to go for all the things they have at the beginning to the end for both aff and neg, but none of the flow is fully developed. pls don't do that. Extend more than 2 offs in the 2NR is a signal of losing my ballot.

- Not a huge fans for overview. Just need one sentence in the top of the 2nr/2ar instructed me how I should write my ballot and why you win the debate.

For policy specific:

Topicality

- Prefer competing interpretations. Offense/Defense + weighing is better than just going for reasonability.

- More evidence + card comparison determine the truth usually

- In-round abuse is good, but you don't need it to win my ballot.

Theory

- I will vote on theory. However, if you are going to run really weird theories, you should consider either you have amazing standards and warranting or the other team screwed up.

- I prefer to be more offensive in theory. The same goes for topicality. Competing for an interp is definitely stronger than saying we meet.

- Condo: real theory arg, but I am really bad at going for it as a debater. I think the condo is a winning strategy for me only when the neg team drops (auto win or T > Condo?) or the neg off case span is extremely abusive. You can still extend condo and go for it, but my threshold for neg to get away with it in 2NR would be low.

- For independent theory on off case (eg. fifty state fiat and process cp bad), "reject the arg not the team" is sufficient for me if the neg team is not going for it.

Framework

- Powerful tool if you utilize it well. (Fun facts: I had ran a policy aff with 2min case + 6min FW in high school)

- If you want to win the framework, you should contetualize with your opponents' counter fw and explain why your fw is less arbitary and produce better education, policymaking, etc for debate.

- Policy Aff Vs K: There's a really high threshold for me to agree not to weigh the aff, but if the aff team drops your FW, then nvm. (Truth: I hate FW. Every 2N told me I couldn't weigh anything.)

- FW Vs K Aff: Naturally, I prefer to go for Clash and TVA. Fairness can be an impact but less for me, especially when debate collapse on subjectivity change. History already show us K Aff won't completely disappear by reading more FW. Question more down to why the alternative model of debate is more important than the k. The only two true internal links for me on the neg are ground and limit. (Truth: everyone read FW against me I hate FW, but still go for it b/c I hate k v k more)

Case

- I think it's really hard for neg to know more about the case than aff does. If neg has an amazing case neg, I will reward the team.

- Go in-depth into the argument. Card comparisons are always effective. Weighing should not be later than 1AR.

DA

- It would never be wrong to go for a DA. Go hard on weighing + turn case!!

- Follow basic offense + defense pattern

- I feel like DA is the only section that is truth > tech for me. The evidence is the most essential part. The more recent cards plus good warrants always change the uniqueness and control the link.

CP

- I hate random cheating cp, especially when there are more than 6 offs. However, go for it when you need to win. (Truth: I also run these cps myself as 2N, but I still hate them when I need to answer them)

- Perm: prefer"perm to do both," "perm to do cp," and "perm to do the plan and part of the cp." You can read other forms of perms, but I don't think that's a winning strategy. (edit: if the plan is a process or devolution cp, i may buy intrinsic perm if u go well on theory)

Ks

- Prefer more plan based link. I am more willing to vote on link turn case strat + alt than only fw

- Both sides can fiat the alt. Prove to me how the alt solves the k and the case better compared to the plan. Of course, you don't need an alt to win the debate. I will treat the K like a philosophical DA if you don't go for alt; then weighing and framework is important. FW prefer weigh the aff against the alt. If your A strat is win the fiat K and "you link you lost," I am probably not the best judge for you.

- Perm is generally just served for checking uncompetitive alternatives.

- Ethics violation: If someone's discourse/behaviors has been called out as an ethical issue, I think an apology should always come first. If the situation falls into a deadlock, I would prefer to stop the round and call the tab instead of treating it as a link.

KAffs

- I debated K aff throughout my junior year, so I think I am somewhat familiar with it. I think K aff is pretty interesting, even though most of the time, it will end up collapsing on t-usfg. Statistically, 90% of the time, I am answering the framework, so I will still vote on it if you run it well. On neg, I usually run T against K aff, but you are free to run anything else.

- Still Policy > K for me. Don't blame me if I don't understand your K trick

LD:

- I have no experience with LD debate or topic, so I may judge based on policy standards. This means I will still try my best to understand your argument, but better no trick and philosophy.

Be respectful

Have fun!