Dennis,+Logan

I debated in high school and I still debate in college. I’m fine with any kind of arguments you want to read in front of me, what I would really prefer is clear in depth argumentation. I don't really have any sort of preferences about which arguments I would be more likely to vote on, I just like clear arguments and flows. What's important to me is clear, warranted impact scenarios and calculus in the rebuttals, and narrowing down strategies. I would prefer one or two clear, strong in depth impact scenarios to multiple blippy scenarios. I'm fine with speed, just be clear and slower for taglines. As far as types of arguments go: Framework: I don't default to any particular framework. I'll weigh arguments against each other based on whoever wins their framework, or if there is no framework through impact calculus. I like specific role of the ballot arguments and in depth explanation of the role of the ballot (for K rounds). Topicality/Theory: I don't really have any side bias for topicality arguemnts, I tend to vote either way on them. I'll vote on T, but I won't vote on potential abuse unless the scenario is clearly outlined and impacted. I want both sides to impact their standards, and I tend to be more of a flow based judge on T arguments. I'm also fine with voting on critical arguments on the T flow, and impact turns on standards. Like before, these just need to be well warranted and impacted out. I'm not very likely to vote on an RVI. I'll also vote on most theoretical arguments, but like I said potential abuse isn't really persusasive. Clear abuse scenarios are much more appealing/easy to vote on. K: I have K debates for almost all of my college rounds and I liked critical debates a lot during high school. I think the K needs to be more in depth than other types of arguments, especially on the link and alternative level. I don't like generic links, so during the rebuttals it would be better to narrow down to case specific links. I think the neg needs to do a good job of contextualizing the world of the alt and explaining how the alt solves the K impacts/solves or turns the case. The aff should press them to do this/point out a lack of it. DA: The link debate is most important to mee on the disad. I like explanations of how the disad interacts with other flows, like how it solves/turns the case. I'm fine with voting on any critical arguments or theoretical arguments against a disad. CP: I like good counterplans, ones that actually compete and have substance/aren't boring. I'll probably be fine with anything you do but if you have any questions or concerns I'd be happy to hear them before the round