Thomas,+Drew

I like good arguments. Analytics play an extremely important role in how I evaluate a round. I believe your speeches should be filled with solid argumentation. A clear affirmative case and a cohesive negative strategy are necessary. I often feel like less is more. Fewer, well developed arguments will win you the round over a lot of quickly explained, mediocre arguments. Topicality- I like a reasonable topicality argument and think it has merit in a debate. A clear and in-depth standards debate is good. The violation has to be reasonable and backed up with a clear definition that isn’t abusive to the affirmative. Theory- is okay, but I would much rather hear arguments on the topic. Kritiks- Please don’t run them. A 90 minute debate is not enough time, and it is not really the forum, to evaluate and debate these philosophies, plus most Kritiks are incorrect representations of valuable philosophical ideas anyway. I rarely evaluate a Kritik and it would be a bad strategy to run one. I want to hear debate on policies meaning that ‘ballot’ theory etc. is unconvincing. If a kritik is run, focus on the alternative is most important to me. Counterplans- They are fine but they need to be thought out and be run as part of a cohesive strategy Disadvantages- I like these a lot, please make them as specific as possible. Specific links and interesting impact scenarios grab my attention (nuclear war is okay, but there are more interesting things to talk about) On Case- More than any of the above stated positions, on case argumentation that directly clashes with the affirmative case is the most compelling argumentation to me. I like specific clash with parts of the affirmative case (directly clashing with one of their cards/points). My biggest pet peeve is when teams ‘dump’ evidence or arguments onto solvency or the advantages, that is not direct clash. Give me good, specific on case debate (a mix of evidence and analytics is fine by me). Although evidence is important I want substance in your argumentation, whether it is in evidence or whether you come up with the argument on your own. A piece of evidence does not trump superior logic. I can handle speed but would prefer a slower rate of delivery.