T - I know you're both better than this, don't use as a timesuck. I'm cool with it, give good standards and don't read the same standard texts to me over and over again, answer opponents standards.
K - Completely cool with it, my favorite argument. Just give an alt PLEASE. Know your kritik, be able to explain it, if you can’t explain it yourself, you don’t know it enough to run it.
DA – Obviously have the link/uniq/impact (with the exception of impact with a solvency mitigation....you all know the drill), if any aff wins any three, the DA is moot. Answer any offense on it before you kick it, you both know this.
Theory – It’s an uphill battle for the aff, but don’t let that keep you from running it! I will vote on it if it’s clear/cut abuse or if you obviously win the theory debate.
Conditionality – My stance is that the negative can have one/two conditional advocacies without having to really worry about theory, any more and prepare to debate it. Still though, my “uphill battle for the aff” applies.
I’m a true tab judge, debate Is about the students, so I’ll listen to anything you have to say. With that being said; I default to offense/defense, so give me good offense, I WILL go on presumption if I must... just please don't make me.
Both of you cool with me?
Giving subjective questions objective answers since '93