NYU 26' and College Prep 22'
 add me to the chain please, callum.theiding [at] gmail.com
 

 I'm a 2n to my core. I'd consider myself flex. There's a fine line in cross between being confident and being rude or mean. Err on the side of being nice.
 

 T
 people should go for T more. I like it. good T debates are beautiful
 -I think fairness is an internal link to education, more education happens pre round during prep and research
 -aff creativity has always been kind of ridiculous to me, affs that say this usually do explode the neg research burden, but i will vote on it if you can effectively weigh it
 -I do love when affs on the fringe of topicality have a clever c/i or w/m, its smart and strategic
 

 Ks
 -i mostly read cap and security - i'm not in the high theory lit, if you want to read things like baudrillard, lacan, or nietzsche, I'm gonna need you to keep it clear
 -links of omission are kinda lame, find specific lines or instances where the aff actually links
 -i prefer something more material and defined, unless you're reading a rejection/inaction alt with a specific warrant for why inaction is key
 -your speaks are getting tanked if you're reading an incommensurability alt and say the k is conditional, either stand by what your authors actually say or don't read it.
 

 CPs
 -most CPs are cheating, but they're also sometimes cool
 -love a creative adv cp
 -i think more than 3 condo is pushing it but if you can win your interp, do what you want
 -not a fan of the 2ac perm shot gun
 -please explain your process cp, a good chunk of these are way wonkier than they need to be. theres definitely a huge advantage to confusing your opponents but a confusing cp is hard to vote for
 

 Theory
 -be clear, if i can't flow it and you try to weigh it, good luck
 -please impact your arguments out early
 -prefer condo or process cp bad over things like a 5 sec vague alts bad that get exploded in the 1ar
 

 Case
 -for the neg, those hard right aff link chains are often very dubious, your speaks will be rewarded if you use a badly written case to your advantage instead of just spamming CPs and DAs
 -2As, I get the need for speed but gimme at least half a second between answering 1NC case args to let me move my pen
 

 DA
 -pls pls pls do your impact calc, earlier the better, give me in depth comparison of impacts, not just "it happens faster, vote neg"
 -not a fan of ptx, but if you win it, ill vote for it. it's been a hot second since i've seen a decent one.
 

 K affs
 K affs are fine but I've only read plan affs. I'll do my best to adjudicate as best I can but you're better off preffing someone with more experience here.
 I'm more familiar with the cap debate than the fw debate. If you're going for fw, don't blitz through your prewritten blocks and slow down for your standards.
 

 note for PF
 I will flow each round. If something is new in the last two speeches, it's much better if you flag it and implicate it.
 If you're gonna be paraphrasing ev or spreading, send a speech doc.
 

 Be clear. I've seen some well thought out cases and I've seen some that we're clearly stolen without checking what they actually said.
 Most structural impacts are true. Use that to your advantage when weighing.
 

 Keep argumentation inclusive. However, if you want to challenge assumptions of the other team and win why it's good, I will vote for it.
 Please don't make me vote on disclosure theory.