Neaylon,+John

Quick Version: Tech over truth--this doesnt mean that I'm gonna check in immediately on the ASPEC--you didnt--voter argument at the bottom of the 2nc conditionality block--but that the flow determines what I think is right regardless of preconceived notions about debate. Obviously this isn't true 100% of the time--but this is how I will try to decide debates. This also doesnt mean that one smart, logical argument cant take out an entire PTX da, but that I need the debaters to apply this properly.

Thoughts on specific arguments--I reward the ability for debaters to be flexible, and see this as a necessity in this age of debate but here goes:

Kritiks: Went for it a decent amount in high school, but still have a somewhat limited understand of a lot of the literature that is put in this category. I think the aff has a lot of trouble in high school K debates because of technical drops and the inability to point out terrible arguments. Affs also have a lot of trouble because of a limited defense of the methodology that informs the 1ac. Kritiks that are well explained, interact well with the aff (whether because of a specific critique or a specific application of a generic critique), and have good comparative impact claims are great to judge. The aff should try to defend their reps/epist/whatever instead of eschewing the debate entirely and going for reps dont matter. This puts the debate on your turf and means that a lot more of your offense is generated by the 1ac. I'm fairly agnostic about framework, but think that "K shouldn't exist frameworks" and "the role of the ballot is to do the alt (or however you put it)" are pretty dumb.

Counterplans: Advantage CPs are very underutilized and can have a ton of strategic utility if you impact turn one advantage or read specific DAs to the AFFs mechanism. Process CPs can be good if they are competitive and have good specific literature, but this excludes the Consult NATO CP that says that NATO cares about our roads. I think most CP theory is reason to reject the argument, excluding Conditionality bad (also Conditionality is the name of the argument, Condos are where my grandparents live). I think that zero/one Conditional option is easily defensible, and that beyond that the debate is up for grabs. The negative is still usually in a good spot here because of technical drops and the amount of time the 1ar has to invest to make this a credible 2ar strategy. Still though, the proliferation of conditional arguments has gotten excessive, and this can be a viable strategy in front of me. For counterplans that compete off the likely implementation of the plan, I'm fairly aff leaning, but again, think that most teams are bad at deploying reasons why the counterplan is no good. I also think most counterplan theory is a question of competition, not legitimacy, and the ability to recognize this would serve both teams well. Also, I'm happy kick your CP for you, but you should tell me to in the 2nr, because otherwise I wont

Disads--the politics DA is a travesty, but I'll check in on it as much as the next guy. Internal link defense is really useful for the aff against most disads, and is rarely deployed. The negative is in a good spot for me when they make good turns case arguments (especially when the aff drops them), but your e subpoint rollback argument is necessarily worthwhile. Again though, tech over truth.

Topicality--agnostic on most issues here. Reasonability is an argument about how to view competing interpretations, not a reason that I shouldnt look at competing interpreations. This can be super useful though. Affs need to fight back against the Limits come first, vote neg, judge style of T debating, but without a substantive response to this, I can see myself voting for T easily. You need arguments about predictability and aff ground here.

Performance: I'm not sure how I'll evaluate these debates, but will try to be fairly objective. I think the debate has to be a question that focuses on the necessity of the ballot, and also think that the resolution is a generally good starting point, but I'm sure I could be persuaded otherwise if this is done well.

Tag team cx is fine, being mean to your partner is not. The latter can certainly hurt your points. Be nice, but also dont be afraid to be debate to win. It's a competitive activity. Speak clearly and your points will reflect this, be strategic, and your points will reflect this, and use CX like you use a speech and your points will reflect this.