Mirzadeh,+Farhaud


 * Debated at grapevine for 4 years now in my second year of debate at UNT **

Impact calculus is very important in all aspects of debate-not just the impact of a disad vs case argument but also impacting theory arguments, solvency deficits, etc...these type of arguments are very important and make judging close debates a lot easier

__Topicality/framework__ - im fine with these-i will normally default to competing interpretation. affs that don't defend a plan are not cool and i think it framework is important in these debates.

__Disads__ - fine with them..turns case arguments are very nice. the more contrived your disad is the more likely the affirmative can get away with making a couple analytics and beating the disad.

__CPs__ - agent cps, consult, conditions, you name it...i enjoy a good cp and disad debate. well-researched pics with big net benefits are awesome. while i tend to err negative on most theory questions i have been more sympathetic to affirmative theory arguments lately. im willing to listen to condo, pics, consult bad debates.

__Kritiks__ - I'm fine with listening to them however you want...with an alt, without an alt, as a case turn. but i think its important for the negative to set up a framework on how to evaluate these arguments and why they precede debate about the plan and advantages. i think its easier to win a role of the ballot claim then win your nebulous alternative solves the case.

And for the 100 point scale here is how i would evaluate it

70-75= 27 75-80=27.5 81-85=28 89-90=28.5 90-94=29 95-100=29.5/30


 * keep in mind this is a very rough estimate and that there will be variations depending on how well you spoke.