There are two templates that I apply to debate rounds. The first filter is fairness. Do the arguments as they are extended conform to my notions of fairness in a debate round? Do they provide debatable ground for both teams where clash is encouraged? Are the arguments extended in such a way that both teams have the fair chance to debate the claims and warrants provided in arguments? In other words, I do take into account more than the truth claims of arguments when I evaluate them at the end of a debate round. If the affirmative, for instance, comes up with a "true" answer in the 2AR, that argument, while true, probably did not provide a fair chance for rejoinder.

The second filter is truth. Once the arguments in a debate round conform to my sense of fairness (defined here as both sides got a chance to argue - clash was encouraged) I will evaluate competing arguments based upon the relative truth of those competing arguments. I will examine that evidence which backs claims as it is isolated by the teams in the debate round. In other words, I will only read that evidence which is identified with accompanying warrant by the team/s in the debate round.

I will make the rest conventional this year:

Critiques - Questioning assumptions seems valuable to me. The assumption that only utilitarian norms have importance seems hopelessly shallow to me. That said, very few teams divorce the meaning from the jargon in rounds. In addition, a warning, I am not particularly persuaded by the "truth" of affirmative claims like, "wrong forum," "non-unique disadvantage," and "policy-making excludes." These are hopelessly shallow defenses of tradition. Do not beg the question and we will get along just fine J .

Counterplans - My predisposition is probably toward what many would term "abusive" counterplans. This is not to say that my predisposition will overwhelm the discussion in the debate, only that I have a predisposition. I think all counterplans are by nature similar to the plan (by actor, action, etc). I do not think plan-inclusive counterplans are tantamount to theft. I think that in most cases the negative has very little chance of winning absent the ability to hold the affirmative to the advocacy of "the plan" as deliniated in the 1AC (this is not a statement about permutations - my argument is that the plan is one entity and the counterplan is another if it is different than the plan and it competes with the plan).

Topicality - Rarely vote on it. Not predisposed against it. I have rarely heard good topicality debates. If you can isolate the level of abuse the plan creates and impact it you can win on T if the literature supports the distinction you are drawing. Sadly, I find that many words in topics are hopelessly arbitrary (substantial etc.).

Disadvantages - The bread and butter of the negative win.

How rounds usually break down - Most rounds come down to one of the following comparisons:

1. The Disadvantage risk versus the risk of the case
2. The solvency deficit to the counterplan plus any disadvantage to the counterplan plus any increment of net benefit captured by the permutation minus the net benefit to the counterplan alone
3. The critique obviates the need to consider the case beyond its relationship as a link
4. Topicality obviates the need to consider the case

Things I am categorically opposed to - Sexist, Racist, or hateful language meant to demean or hurt other debate participants.