Third year debater at Woodward Academy.

Add me to the chain: avylovestostealcards@gmail.com

Tldr:

None of my argument preferences should affect the way you debate, make it an interesting and educational debate for me and your opponent

Tech>Truth

Be Clear, especially on tags and important analytics.

All dropped/mishandled arguments need to be impacted out. Explain y it matters that they conceded it

I tend to lean neg on theory and T against K-affs

If you do cheaty stuff be prepared to answer for it, BUT I wont not consider it. For example reading 2NC CP will get you a theory arg but you can still convince me.

Weigh the advantage of removing analytics because if the other team doesn't flow them, there is a chance neither can I. I will lower speaks if you do this vs novices

+0.1 speaks if you can make me laugh/if you start every rebuttal with it's a bad time to be aff

Case:

Not too much to say here. In the 1NC try to get enough case defense instead of trying to outspread your opponents with more off case. I love a turn debate but be prepared to go for it, and have a billion cards on it. Dont read it for more offense. I love CP/Turn debates or just turn debates

DAs:

Great! I personally belive they are the most convincing argument if they are a true opportunity cost to the plan. Just impact it out and explain y that turns case

CPs:

Most of them are great. I lean aff on process CPs/"Cheaty" CPs but love a good plan specific CP. Another consideration is if the CP's NB is germane to the aff. I do like limitied functional intrinsicness and I WILL vote on perm do plan and CP over other issues and isn't commonly extended.

Ks:

Fine. If you can explain it to a layman, you can go for it. If your reading your varsity teams blocks and/or removing analytics against novices, I will give you low speaks. I don't think there is a reason why the aff cant weigh their plan against the impact of the K or a reason why the neg doesn't get Ks. Ofcourse you can convince me otherwise

T:

Especially useful against small affs that avoid topic gens and I lean neg on T against K-Affs

Ps:

The only situation you should extend the common ones (ASPEC/Vagueness) is if they are dropped or fully mishandled. I can be convinced of procedurals like any other argument. If its hidden so I dont flow it, i dont care if the other team drops it

Condo:

Make it an educational/fun debate if you go for it please. I tend to lean neg, idk of any arguments of why I should reject the team even if they drop condo. If they drop I should reject the team, explain it. In my opinion, its never made the debate so skewed that it's a reason to reject the team.

Third year debater at Woodward Academy.

Add me to the chain: 26wrieck@woodward.edu

Tldr:

None of my argument preferences should affect the way you debate, make sure to clash with your opponents and have fun!

Tech>Truth

Be Clear, especially on tags and important analytics.

All dropped/mishandled arguments need to be impacted out.

If it’s possible use verbatim/word for docs.

If you're doing obviously cheaty stuff in novice it may not be considered.

Open cross is fine but if your partner is answering all your cross-ex questions it could affect your speaks.

Case:

Not too much to say here. In the 1NC try to get enough case defense instead of trying to outspread your opponents with more off case.

DAs:

Great! I have most experience with politics and econ, but great impact calc and turns case arguments can convince me of anything, especially case specific DAs. Make sure you have enough time to extend them, spending two minutes on a DA in the block for time skew probably isn’t a good use of your time.

CPs:

Most of them are great. I love well put together, case specific counterplans but will lean aff on theory and competition for process and other cheaty CP’s.

Ks:

Fine. Make sure to explain all Ks, especially high theory, and lesser-known Ks. If you're reading your team's annoying varsity blocks/removing analytics from your speech on purpose in novice you will get lower speaks.

T:

Go for it! I think that T probably isn’t extended enough. Against small affs that avoid core generics, T is often your best bet, but you can still definitely go for it even if, on a truth level the aff is topical.

Ps:

The only situation you should extend the common ones (ASPEC/Vagueness) is if they are dropped or fully mishandled. I can be convinced of procedurals like any other argument. If its hidden/tacked on to T in novice I will not vote on it.

Impact turns:

There fine. Most things from disads apply. Would love for a in depth shell to be read in the 1NC, a half-baked, 1 card impact turn can be really hard to win even if your opponent only has a few good arguments against it.

Condo:

I get that its really annoying to respond to a big 1NC but I think condo should be a last resort option, still winnable. Competing interps of like 2 to 3 condo is kinda silly because there's no brightline, but uncondo/dispo is probably unfair for the neg.