Add me to the email chain: 2ethanharris@gmail.com
 University of Kansas '25
 Lawrence Free State '21
 I'm a sophomore debating for KU, and a 2A who has read a mix of policy and K arguments.
 Top Level
 Do what you do best. I will try my best to adapt and be unbiased. I care much more about argument quality than argument type.
 Judge instruction is really important and will improve your speaks and odds of winning. The 2NR/2AR should put pieces together, use even if statements, simplify the debate, and do impact calc. Organized, easy to flow speeches that use direct clash will boost speaks and make the debate easier to be resolved.
 I have done minimal research on the NATO topic for the JDI & Pembroke Hill - explain acronyms, have specific link stories/solvency mechanisms.
 Read re-highlightings or explain what it says if inserting it - I won't read it for you.
 Tech > truth.
 K affs
 They're good. Assume I don't know your literature base and err on the side of over-explanation.
 It is possible to win on presumption against K affs. Specific analysis and explanation of the advocacy/mechanism for the aff is important. Explain why you solve something or don't need to.
 I don't care about the form the 1AC takes (performance, cards, etc.), but it should defend something and have some connection to the topic.
 I appreciate innovative neg strats and creative PIKs.
 Framework v K affs
 Go for whatever impact you're most comfortable with.
 Fairness can/can not be an impact depending on who is winning this argument, so explain and impact out fairness when going for it.
 Explain what your model of the resolution/debate looks like, including topical affs and a progression of innovation for those affs throughout the season. You're probably winning an impact, so a giant impact overview is useless, but contextualizing and explaining it to the debate can write my ballot for you.
 Neg: Answer case - don't concede the aff's theory of power or solvency mechanism and case offense. TVAs aren't necessary, but a good one can be terminal defense.
 Aff: Get creative with your counter-interpretation to limit out of the negs impacts. Weigh the aff and its education - you read it for a reason. Reading a couple well-impacted out disads in the 2AC is better than reading a series of unexplained disads. Impact turn strategies should be coupled with defense.
 Ks
 Explain the theory of power in simple language, assuming I don't understand the literature and buzzwords. Err on the side of over-explanation in high theory debates.
 Embedded clash > long overviews.
 Links are DAs to the perm, but there needs to be an impact to this when going for an alt.
 Links of omission aren't links. Link contextualization is important and can make a generic link persuasive - talk about the aff as much as possible - pull lines from the 1AC and CX. 1-2 impacted out links > multiple links.
 Framework shapes how I should resolve clash debates, so explain why winning framework matters, and how you win the debate even if you lose framework.
 Winning an alt isn't totally necessary, but it is helpful. Explain how the alt solves the links but the perm doesn't.
 I'm good for technical, well-defended K tricks - link turns case, floating piks, PIPs, epist first, etc. These strategies should not be vague or underexplained by the end of the 2NR.
 Aff: 2ACs should contextualize perms to the links. You need to answer their theory of power - defense to theirs and an alternative theory of power. Leverage your 1AC - impact turns, case outweighs, net benefit to the perm, etc.
 Theory
 2ACs should read multiple theory arguments, and don't be afraid to go for them.
 Condo isn't necessarily good or bad, you don't need to win in round abuse but it helps.
 Slow down and clash, don’t spread through blocks at top speed.
 T
 My topic knowledge is minimal, so I don't have a great understanding of what "core of the topic" actually is, and the interp debate is extra important.
 Slow down in these debates and impact it out in the 2NR.
 Case lists and examples of lost ground/functional limits are good.
 I default to competing interpretations but think reasonability is fine. Either way, explain what it means for resolving the debate.
 DAs/CPs
 Specific links and explanations > topic links.
 Couch turns case arguments into the internal link when possible.
 Judge kick is probably bad and I won't do it unless instructed to.
 Good analytics can beat a bad DA.