Topicality: Usually I'm not a fan of "T", but have recently become much more receptive to smart/strategic arguments and have no problem voting here. It should be well-developed...not a time-suck (unless used strategically to get links). I rarely vote on RVI's. However, I give extra props to debaters who make an intelligent, tight T argument and debate it well. Also open to non-traditional means of answering the position if well-explained. At what level do I put T in my decision process: before the kritik? before the indep. voter on conitionality? If Aff. wins a moral obligation to do the plan, should I overlook T?..., etc.

Counterplans: Terms like "Conditionality" and "Dispositional" are meaningless. I vote for or against the plan. CP must present a forced choice, i.e. a reason (net-benefit) for me not to choose the plan. Most CPs compete because they solve all (or part) of case and avoid a disad/kritik. Exclusivity is inherent in the forced choice: if Neg., then not Aff. then It's also reducible to net-benefits: the reason not to accept the test (perm) of competition is some sort of disad. I don't exactly agree with the standard equation: CP solves all of case...ANY risk of Clinton! You need to build on that by giving me a way to evaluate that risk; otherwise, I will look at the analysis and evidence in the round and decide whether the risk is substantial enough to warrant policymaking concern. Alternate agent CPs are fine. As for debates concerning PICs, delay cp, exclusionary cp, Anarchy, intrinsicness tests, counter-perms, "friendly plan amendments"/re-plans, plan-plan and the like, I'm open to it all; but, I think ground and solvency (advocate?) are essential concerns. This is just my take. Debaters should feel free to present their own interpretations on theoretical questions. Justify your approach and explain why you win...no problem.

"Kritiks," etc.: I definitely enjoy kritik debates. Unfortunately, "kritik" is thrown around withmuch obscurity...clear it up. I hold Kritiks to a somewhat higher standard than others. I don't particularly like when they are used as a time-suck, or random off-case. They should be well-developed and insightful positions. No problem with 9 minutes of a smart kritik (but if you go here, would prefer it be other than "threat konstruction," "feminist k of IR" or "shunning...not that these aren't good/important arguments, jutst heard them so many times) I think debate offers a unique forum within and for education (academic, political, social). How all of this happens (or why it shouldn't) are subject to the debate. That being said.....Tight overviews at the top of the K are excellent for wholistic conception of the argument and its implications. What are the links (all of them...i.e., within the 1AC ev?)? I give permutations equal weight (unless debated out otherwise) to the kritik. However, my standards for permutations are a little tight: might explain how it compares to the CP competition, be well-developed and evidenced whenever possible. Same with "counter-perms." Counter-Kritiks can also be effective in answering the Kritik (straight-turn, in effect). The perm can also function as a counter-kritik. What are its implications? Are they "independent voters" even if they get out and kick the kritik? Be VERY clear as to WHY I should vote on the Kritik and at WHAT LEVEL/POSITION it takes in my decision calculus. If you say "pre-fiat" and they drop it, then it becomes the first thing I look at......then what? How does it interact with other positions? Why should it precede the specificity of the case solvency? What is the role of my ballot? Any? So you open up discursive space? That means...? What is the propensity for the link and how does it affect the position as a CP net-benefit?...some things to consider in respect to the 2AR/2NR.... Personally, I am best on development discourse, hermenueitcs, Sartre, Jung/psychoananysis, various critical IR perspectives, shunning, Foucault, nuclear criticism and post-colonialism....open to all approaches.

Disads: Not much of a Clinton/BiPart fan, but will vote on it easily. Generally, I am pretty picky on the specificity of the link and uniqueness. Especially for Clinton, you need to have a pretty tight story. I like clear, developed impact scenarios. A solid straight-turn in the 2AC in always fun! I would rather vote on a disad that prevent a few nuclear wars than T. Mini-disads or big turn stories on case are effective. Define and evaluate your impacts. How do I weigh a nuclear war and environmental collapse? What kind of war? How big are the warheads the specific country would use? Is the one-shot big impact more important than a smaller, but systemic impact?

2AR/2NR: A must do: big picture-type overview, full comparison of arguments (including evidence, analysis and implications), CLOSE ALL THE DOORS! If you want me to read a card, tell me so and why. I'm pretty fair about reading cards. If you randomly list off authors, it won't get you far. If a card becomes a point of contention, I'll probably call for it. Be sure you tell me EXACTLY what you read and what card(s) on the page you actually read. The "even if.." speech is always effective.

Affirmative notes: Very open to cases that function as critical arguments. This extends to arguments of deontology and moral obligations, to a lesser degree. What does it mean to have a "moral obligation" to do the plan? Does the CP capture it? A lot of times, deontology debates become irrelevant because the CP sucks up all of case. Those who take on deontology (1AC) straight up are often at a strategic disadvantage. But if you have game on the issue, go for it and make sure you are clear. Also, I find a lot of Affs skating the thin ice of a doubleturn: 1NC, "They are stuck w/ deontology as the framework for your decision calculus...must defend it...they make consequentialist claims...you vote neg."...but that takes a little work. Also, what parts of the case are you going for? If not, what does that mean? If you take the moral high ground, make sure you stay there and say "Enough!"

General: Speed is not a problem, but slow down just a tiny bit when reading: the CP text, the perm(s) and those extra-long tags with 20 implications! Basically, I'll vote on just about anything, provided it is well-explained and the voting implications are clearly identified. I prefer an upbeat round. There is no particular reason to be rude or offensive. A "card" is not a few fragments from a BBC byline (Clinton). Some cards can be one sentence, but it better make a claim and give a warrant...that is an argument! Any team/person participating in unethical behavior becomes subject to the policies of that tournament. I fully recognize that mistakes are made. I'll pull the trigger on a double-turn pretty easily. Make the necessary extensions and voting arguments: impact double-turns usually require more specific extensions. Has to be clear. Humor and various performance- oriented approaches are welcome, provided I know what implications it has on the round, or should I "step out of the box?" What does that mean? While I consider my self in a position of a policymaker, I am probably closer to a critic of argument at the center.

Back