Merican,+Nick

====Make the arguments you want to make. Defend USFG implementation, don’t defend USFG implementation, dance, sing, speak fast, don’t speak fast, wipe out humanity, just do you; but be able to defend what and why that is. ====

**Topicality: **
====I tend to lean affirmative when it comes to topicality issues. If your strategy for topicality is leveraging a jurisdictional claim, you should change that if I'm in the back. If your comparing the interpretations and the types of arguments that become viable between the two teams, you’re in a much better spot. Just like theory debates, slow down a little, and clearly outline why I’m voting for you in the final rebuttals. ====

**Counterplans: **
====Conditionality can be good, it can also be bad; it’s a question of degrees. I default to reject the argument and not the team unless persuaded otherwise. Draw specific examples of how the other team’s strategy made it impossible to generate your own offense. Counterplans that result in plan action are questionably competitive. If you’re ====

**Disadvantages (Taken from Peter “The Susko Monster” Susko) **
====I am willing to vote on a zero percent risk of a link. Vice versa, I am also willing to vote negative on presumption on case if you cannot defend your affirmative leads to more change than the status quo. Issue specific uniqueness is worth a whole lot more than a laundry list of thumpers. ====

**Criticisms: **
====I went for the K pretty regularly. That being said, I don’t care what authors you read or what jargon you’re using. I do care about knowing how the criticism implicates the affirmatives impacts and how the alternative is able to resolve those issues. Drawing examples from the affirmative evidence goes a long way protecting yourself from the perm. ====

**Performance: **
====Every speech is a performance. For the more non-traditional affirmatives, explicitly detailing the advocacy, and why the performance itself is necessary is important. I think ignoring the topic all together puts the affirmative in a pretty poor spot. The more examples you have showing your type of performance creating positive change the better. I’m not sold on any single idea of competition and would love to hear this type of debate hashed out. ====

**Notes **

 * ====You have to do impact calculus for whatever you are going for. If I don’t know why what you spent your 2NR talking about is more important than the 2AR, problems will ensue. ====
 * ====I will probably have to read more evidence than I want to. Making comparative claims about the evidence would be stellar, and saves me from making decisions you probably won’t like. ====
 * ====I’ll vote on cheap shots. I won’t be happy about it, and it will probably be reflected in the speaker points, but I have no qualms voting for them. ====
 * ====Prep time runs until the jump drive is in the opposing team’s hand. ====
 * ====<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;">I think the idea of being nice is over-valued. I think assertive, aggressive arguments between teams are good, and brings out the best competition. Additionally, if there is bad-blood between teams, I want to know about so I can gossip with the other judges. End Note: Don’t be an asshole for the sake of it. That is still bad. ====
 * ====<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;">These predispositions are liable to change. It would be silly not to be open to new things. ====