Githens,+P.J.

Debated 3 years at Olathe North High school (Kansas) and am entering my first year of college debate at NYU. Pardigm: Tab rasa (really i'll vote on anything.)

T- No predisposition to hating this, and I evaluate just as any other argument. I evaluate on an offense-defense paradigm. As long as standards and reasons for abuse are made very clear I'll vote for it. Very big on the Competing interpretations debate. K'ing T is fine, as long as it is clearly explained why their silencing action of you is a reason for me to ignore the argument (or possibly vote them down). One note on T, RVI's are never acceptable. Running them will cause me to tank your speaker points. If they go dropped, I may have to vote on them, but i will not be happy about it.

Cp's- anything goes here. Extremely open to cosult, word PICs. multi-plank. seriously, anything goes, just be able to defend the theory that gets thrown at you. You can win a condo debate with me, I've gone for it often, but to me, it's only justified and really impacted out when there is no other option left for the aff (say neg goes all in on a condo cp and k in the block).

Theory- Almost any theory is okay with me. You need to have an interpretation for the theory you're going for though. If it's some new interp that no one's heard of before, really explain it so that I know what it means and how it can solve back all of the other teams claims. Impact out why it matters. I like to hear about specific abuse that happened in round (not to say that i can't be persuaded to vote on potential abuse).

DA's- Don't know what to write here. They are great. Generics are fine. Just make sure it makes sense.

K's-This is the one part where I'm not the greatest, and it is probably my least favorite argument. I've run a few different K's (security (best option for me to understand), heideggar, cap). You shouldn't assume that I will automatically understand the literature, because I don't sit around and read wierd european philosophers, and I'm a big policy hack. But, with that being said, I will still evaluate them in round just as well as anything else. Just make sure the alt is clearly explained. I can and have voted on utopian alts bad. All theory just needs to be explained and impacted out. Don't be scared to run the K, just explain it.

I will not vote on defense or stock issues alone (well maybe solvency turns, but i prefer an impact). I vote aff in almost all rounds where there is no form of offense from the Neg.

I vote on the flow. If the other team extends an arg you dropped, they have won that arg in my book.

Oh, and i'm really big on the impact calc. On the impact calc i want to hear magnitude, time frame, probablility, etc. and have it all clearly explained out.

I will default to util absent being given any other option.if given the option between saving a million people and saving a million and one, i will vote on the second option.

i feel like I've left something out. Just ask if you need to know anything