Parke,+Logan

Topicality- I generally view topicality as a game of competing interpretations about what interpretation would be better for debate, I do not believe in competing interpretations exclusively but teams should be very specific in any other method of evaluation for topicality (the word reasonability alone is not a framework for evaluating topicality). I have found that teams often do a poor job of comparing standards on topicality and expressing why the impacts to their standards would be comparatively more important. Topicality is like any other argument, impact comparison is important.

Theory- I tend to err neg on theory, the affirmative should probably be able to defend their plan. That being said I tend to give credence to affirmative theory arguments on PICs if the negative does not have a solvency advocate. Absent a solvency advocate it becomes much less persuasive that an affirmative should be prepared to answer/be able to generate offense against a CP. This is a recent development in my philosophy, and that being said, very specific PIC rounds are some of the most enjoyable rounds to watch. I don't really like consult CPs either, but that is just a personal preference. KritiksThere is nothing i hate to watch more than a bad K debate; however, I do enjoy deep kritik debates where negatives/affirmatives are very specific about the purpose of their criticism and its function within the round. A good kritik debater should isolate specific links within the affirmative/negative and discuss the criticisms impacts in reference to the affirmative. Your framework should probably be defended by your author or an author discussing your argument. CPs- See theory, I guess.

Evidence- Evidence quality is much more important than quantity, you should be adept at evidence comparison through a variety of means whether specificity, qualification, etc. I hate writing these things and don't really know what else to say. Debate how you want, ask questions if you desire.

Topicality is a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue

Despite the preferences of the teams that I coach, If you plan to use the "Occupy Movement" as an example of effective protest, you should likely strike/low pref me. This is not indicative of a desire to not see Kritiks per say, but I have seen a couple of rounds where the debaters' assumption was that everyone believes that was factual without any warrants indicating actual effectiveness, which I found annoying.

I have a pretty good understanding of economics and enjoy good debates about the subject.