Stolte,+Hank

NEW IMPORTANT THINGS: - I seriously want you to go slower on theory/t/fw + include real comparative analysis if you want me to vote on it. - I am no longer defaulting to a "risk of extinction" way of impact evaluation, there has to be an argument behind that for me to care. Essentially I've become much more convinced to err on the side of reasonable defense against contrived arguments (When provided - not as default).

debated @ at the University of Texas. Prior to that I debated 5 years for Thorndale High School.

Most of my debate experience has been involved in the critical side of debate, if this is the __only__ reason you are going for the K in front of me - please don't.

Just do whatever you do best - I have judged, coached, and debated all the ways - I'll be fine. As a judge I evaluate arguments. An argument is a claim, warrant, and impact. I'll evaluate anything you give me that fits the description. I have absolutely no qualms about voting on defense, and have a tendency to look at truth over tech.

Specific Things-

Theory/T: You should probably slow down at this part of the debate. I have a highish threshold for theory args, doing comparative impact analysis that is perhaps attached to a "scenario" would be a great way to overcome that. Not a big fan of "cheapshots". Some arguments such as "pre-round condo" and "judge choice" I'm more easily convinced are "bullshit".

FW: Give me some pen time. Have an interpretation. I will be holding you to the same standard of explaining/applying your impacts and why your interp solves them that I will be subjecting your opponent too. Just telling me "they dropped Shively - therefore we outweigh ontological damnation" means nothing to me.

K's: I'm decently versed in this stuff, but you shouldn't assume I'm familiar with whatever you're reading. You need a specific link, an explained impact, and a coherent alt solvency story. You need to generate offense against FW if it's read. Same standard as above when it comes to comparison - saying "conceded Dillion means we impact turn FW" means nothing to me divorced from an explanation of why that's true.

Jargon is not an argument.

CP's: Sure. Slow down on theory if you want it to be important. To steal from Flynn, "I could be persuaded that international fiat, 50 state fiat, consult counterplans, multiple conditional advocacies, offsets counterplans, and any counterplan that competes off normal means are bad".