Background: Hi I'm Jackson, I'm a first-year policy debater at Trinity University and I've spent my last two years doing policy debate for Wimberley High School

jdelhage@trinity.edu

Overview: Firstly, I'm fine with really any argument. Most of my high school experience was with traditional plan-focused policy debate so that's what I mainly prefer but I've had experience with other types of debate. I prefer almost every kind of affirmative case out there as long it follows a traditional advantage-plan text-solvency approach that defends the resolution. I'm good with almost every neg argument out there. However when going for things such as framework and K's it's important to make it apparent to me what it's about and spend rebuttal time fleshing out these arguments since I can sometimes get lost in K debates. I also really want to see clash in-round between teams instead of just reading a ton of evidence with no real arguing. Impact-Calc is also super important to do in later speeches. Also, A dropped arg is a true arg

Aff: Like I said above, affs that defend the topic with a plan-text are always good with me. I'm not against plan less aff's but if you decide to run them please make an effort to state why the resolution should not be debated and how your affirmative functions.

T: Please hold off on using Topicality unless there's a clear violation on the aff side, I'm not a huge fan of just running it because you can. I tend to side with the Aff on T unless the violation is clear and/or the aff drops it.

DA: Big fan when done right. Emphasize telling me a good DA story and go through each part of the argument and tell me why it's true. Telling me something big and bad is going to happen isn't going to convince me that the aff will cause it.

CP: Clearly state the net-benefit and mutually exclusivity with the aff

K: I don't have a ton of K experience, but just be clear about the thesis of the K and what the alt's function is

Speed: Go as fast as you can handle