Sullivan,+Ryan

I've recently decided that my old paradigm sucks - so in the interim please see Kathryn Rubino's:

General I dislike intervening in debate rounds. I would much rather apply the criteria the debaters supply and work things out that way. As a result the final rebuttals should provide me with a clean story and a weighing mechanism. If only one side provides this I will default to their standards. If neither side does this, I'll use my own opinions and evaluations of the round.

Simply put the debate is about impacts- weigh them, their likelihood and magnitude and we're doing fine.

I think it is the debater's responsibility to explain the analysis of their cards, particularly on complex positions. However, I recognize the time constraints in a round and will read cards that receive a prominent place in rebuttals. But I do not like to read piles of cards and being forced to apply my analysis to them. As a side note, I rarely flow author names so don't just extend the author's name- also be clear to which argument the card applies to.

I'll listen to whatever people want to say- but you should probably know my dispositions ahead of time. Be warned however, I have voted against my preferences many times and anticipate doing it again in the future.

Kritiks I like kritik/advocacy debate. That being said, I do not have a knee-jerk reaction when I hear them. Part of what makes kritiks interesting is the variety and depth of responses available. To get my vote here I generally need a clear story on the link and implication levels.

I enjoy framework debates- debating about debate is fun- and as a bonus I don't think there are any right or wrong answers- just arguments that can be made.

Topicality I rejoice the return of topicality! And I have no problem voting on topicality, even if I don't agree with a particular interpretation, but I do think a T story needs to be clear and technically proficient.

Disads DAs are fine, and the more case specific the better. I think internal consistency is key here, and as a result I'm very sympathetic to arguments that poke holes in that. And the older I get the more I dislike politics disads- they just don't make sense to me- more of a hodgepodge of cards then an argument. I think the second rebuttals need to be extra clear on the story here so I know exactly what I'm voting for.

Counterplans/Theory I don't mind listening to PICs or other interesting CPs, and I often feel they're good way to test the validity of a plan. However, I am open to theoretical debate here and I'm willing to vote on it.

I will vote on the easy way out of a round- I don't try to divine the ultimate truth of what the debaters are saying. I'm just adjudicating a game- a fun game that can teach stuff and be pretty sweet- but still a game. So enjoy your round, do your job and I will too.