Hagney,+Mitch

I went to the TOC for Bishop Guertin in high school and the NDT for Trinity University in college.

I think impact calculus is everything, if the top of your 2AR/2NR doesn't include __comparative__ impact assessment, but the other team does, your chances are pretty poor at winning. Particularly important to me is the question of impact **uniqueness**. Think about how arguments that are kicked affect the uniqueness of the impacts that the other team is advancing.

If you're going for the critique, root cause/turns case/impact uniqueness arguments are the most persuasive part of the debate to me. I also need to know what the role of the ballot is, and what the alternative looks like.

For K affs, my bias is that the affirmative should defend the implementation of their aff, and if you're going to use framework arguments to prove you don't need to implement a policy, then you need to focus on answering some of the theoretical reasons behind its justifiability like predictability and limits.

Finally, defense matters. No internal link, uniqueness overwhelms the link, empirically denied, impact inevitable - these arguments are some of the most persuasive to me and I am more likely to think you are smart if you say them. Judges who default to a "risk of a link" for a process counterplan must win a substantial link to overcome the presumption to vote aff against a counterplan in the event of a tie.