Cooper,+Ryan

Ryan Cooper
When evaluating the round I will first look to see if their is any argument that comes before an evaluation of the standard/critetion. If so I will go there first. If not, I will try to determine who won the standards debate and see who won the decided upon standard. I don't particulary care if you don't use the word 'criterion' or 'standard' as long as you some how explain to me which arguments are relevant to the round. I don't think there are any arguments I will refuse to vote off. I am willing to evaluate Kritiks, theory, and whatever other cool arguments might come about. But of course I do have some preferences. I am not sure, however, to what degree they will unwillingly affect my decisions. I prefer reasonable, topic specific arguments. I enjoy strategy and trickery. I don't like weird for the sake of the weird. Nor do I like listening to generic 7-minute negatives that are run no matter what the topic is. Nor do I like 1ARs that are four minutes of theory. But you know, I'll do my best not to let these biases interfere with the round. I will not vote for things I don't understand. I don't care if I come off as an idiot in the RFD. It is your job to explain the argument to me. I think it is interventionist to vote for an argument, when the meaning of that argument is unclear in round, even if that argument is being technically won on the flow. I am not well read. I am not familiar with whatever trendy philosopher you might be running. That doesn't mean you have to run stock arguments with monosyllabic words. It does mean the burden is on you to explain what you are saying and how it links to the topic. Finally, I really don't care how fast you go. But I should warn you, I am really bad at flowing. Who knows maybe I will get better. But until then, if I didn't understand what you said the first time you said it, then too bad.