Pielstick,+Fritz

I'm fine with just about any argument, except for bad theory. The only relevant quirk of my paradigm is that I believe theory is //always// an RVI. I will not change that stance. Feel free to read all the theory you want, but if your opponent sufficiently answers the theory with either an 'I meet' or a counter-interp (or any other compellingly argued answer to theory), then you lose. **(NOTE: THIS OBVIOUSLY ONLY APPLIES IF YOU READ THEORY AS A REASON TO REJECT THE DEBATER.)** If you're still reading this, here's the rest of my paradigm:

Assuming the round is substantive, I'll render my decision by selecting a standard, and then voting for the person who best links into that standard. That's it. Figure out what the most important issue in the debate is, and then win it.

I default to presuming aff. I don't really care whether or not you debate the topic. I'm fine with critical arguments, as long as they're coherent (I'm not particularly well-read, though, so explain them well). I default to evaluating theory as a matter of reasonability, and a reason to reject the debater. I'm conceptually open to micro-political and performance positions, as long as there is a compelling ballot story. I'm cool with LARP/policy-style args.

Speed is fine. I don't judge nearly as much as I used to, so I may not be able to keep up with your very top speed anymore, but I should still be able to flow most people without problems. I'll yell "clear" if you aren't. If the clarity issue is just with author names, I'll just yell "author names." If you're too fast for me, I'll swallow my pride and admit it and tell you to slow down.

If I think you deserve to clear, you'll get at least a 28.5. An average performance will get you about a 27.5. 29+ is for debaters whom I think have a shot at going deep.

I'm not impressed by debaters who are really good at reading prep-outs. I prefer interesting, non-stock arguments to stock arguments. I prefer fast debate to slow debate.