Lite,+Sam

I debated throughout high school at Ladue High School in Saint Louis, MO. I am currently a student at Princeton University.

I haven't done a lot of judging so I haven't really found that I have any huge biases when it comes to particular arguments, but I do have some general defaults on arguments that it might be helpful to know. Remember that these are only default views, and if you tell me to evaluate something differently, I'll try to do so.

I generally think in terms of competing interpretations, but this definitely not set in stone, which is why the affirmative should probably be making good reasonability arguments. These "good" reasonability arguments, though, do not include protests that your affirmative is "reasonably topical." I also tend to think about topicality in terms of limits, but that also doesn't mean that the most limiting interpretation will always win.
 * Topicality:**

It's probably also important to note that I haven't had a ton of exposure to this year's topic, so I might not be familiar with some of the specific terminology/acronyms or nuances of the wording of the resolution.

I love smart/strategic counterplans. If you can solve the entirety of the affirmative and avoid the slightest risk of the net benefit, then it's pretty much game over for the affirmative. Affirmatives: reading add-on advantages is probably smart.
 * Counterplans/Theory:**

I feel like I err neg on counterplan theory. Conditionality and PICs are both probably okay. Consult/conditions are probably okay, too, but that's more debatable. They become a lot more okay if you have an actual solvency advocate. Absent significant abuse (whatever that means), most theoretical objections are probably at worst reasons to reject the argument, not the team. For instance, multiple perms probably aren't a reason to reject the aff, but they might be a reason to reject multiple perms.

I love a good politics debate. The more specific, the better. I prefer quality of evidence to quantity. It's possible to win a near 0% chance of an impact, especially if something crucial is dropped or the neg's evidence is sufficiently terrible.
 * Disadvantages:**

There isn't really much to say here.

I was primarily a policy debater in high school, and I won't pretend to be super well-versed in the minutiae of every k author that people read. Don't take that as a reason to not run a kritik in front of me, though. Debate to your strengths: if you want to read a kritik, then read a kritik; as long as you're not an incoherent idiot, I'll probably understand your argument.
 * Kritiks:**

Do good impact analysis. Kritiks that frame the debate around reasons why the aff can't weigh the case are probably smart. So are turns case arguments, value to life arguments, alt solves case arguments, etc. Ethics can outweigh extinction, but it's probably an uphill battle.

Projects/non-traditional debate: I'm probably not the best judge for this type of debate. I generally think the aff should defend a plan based in the resolution.

If you are excessively unclear, I will not prompt you. I will just not flow. It is your job to communicate to me.
 * Other Things:**

If there is a theory debate, please please PLEASE do not just read your theory block in response to the aff's theory block and ignore the line-by-line. Answer arguments. Do comparative analysis. Actually debate theory.

I probably won't read many cards after the round unless they were specifically contested in the debate or I'm interested in the argument for whatever reason.