Hernandez,+Sean

I debated at Damien for four years in high school and at USC for two.

These are arguments I have an affinity for: - Turn: their impact is actually good - Disad is not intrinsic - Disad turns the case - Counterplan solves the case - 'X' has no impact

Arguments must pass a basic logic test. That is, they must have __some__ semblance of reasoning behind them. If I'm left with having to wrap my mind around arguments that makes zero or less than zero sense, albethey dropped, I will just ignore them. A good (although not the most egregious) example of this is asserting that a hegemony advantage operates as impact defense against other nuclear war scenarios. This __can__ be true...I guess. But an aff/disad needs to have an internal link to that opposing impact scenario and what that internal link is needs to be pointed out.

Everyone likes to know what judges think about K's - I don't particularly like them. They are, at this point, a necessary evil. Although if you are reading the critique of capitalism I will have a hard time understanding the argument you are making.

Topicality can be interesting and strategic, although it doesn't usually turn out to be.

__Arguments that I hate - (not that I won't vote for them, I just happen to think they make us all stupider)__ - Elections Da - Other Politics Da's - Topicality - Substantial - Spanos - Agent Counterplans - Counter-Interp - Only our case is topical (This is, actually, an argument I will never vote on. In fact, I probably won't flow any discussion of this argument). - Bottom of the docket - Affs that don't talk about the resolution - Topicality is genocide/Nazism/Anti-Foucault/etc. - "Pre-fiat" and "Post-fiat."