Gay,+Kevin

__**General Info:**__ I debated at La Salle College High School for four years and am now a freshman at the University of Michigan. As far as judging goes, the Michigan tournament is my first tournament of the year. In high school, my typical 2nr was security when applicable, but they varied anywhere from politics to Baudrillard (so read what you want).

__**Thoughts:**__
 * Go as fast as you want
 * Don't sacrifice clarity for speed - if I stop flowing because you are unclear that will only hurt you
 * I won't take prep for flashing
 * I will vote on the flow - not on how I feel
 * Act professionally - this is an academic activity
 * Be smart - just reading blocks will make a lot of debates closer than they should be
 * Tech is much more important than truth, but if you are making true arguments it is a lot easier to win a debate that is technical from both sides

__**Specifics:**__

//Topicality// - Definitely a voter, I will defer to competing interpretations but reading through the literature for the topic it shouldn't be too hard to win reasonability My only request is that you really impact out why it is a voting issue.

//Theory// - Any sort of condo is the most persuasive - I am personally not a fan of severance or intrinsicness as being reasons to reject the team.

//Disadvantages// - You need to win __all__ parts of the disadvantage, not just that you have a bigger impact. That being said, it is critical that your uniqueness evidence is recent, but what makes a disad really persuasive is if the link, internal link, and impact are all recent. As far as my decision making goes, I have no problem believing there is no risk the disad could happen. Please do not tell me the link determines uniqueness because that makes no sense at all.

//Counterplans// - Big fan of a good advantage CP or one that solves the entire aff. I do not like condition counterplans or consult counterplans, but if the other team doesn't answer it well I will not punish you for going for it - strategic decisions are always the best idea.

//K's// - This is what I did most of my senior year. Kritiks can be very strategic, but please do not read it if you cannot explain it. Listening to someone read blocks and have it be apparent they do not understand the literature is brutal. ***important note: If you are reading a high level kritik please explain because I will not be familiar with the literature (ie: Lacan)

//Critical Affirmatives// - Go for it. You have the same burden as a non-critical affirmative: prove to me that the 1AC is a good idea.

//Framework// - I view this through the same lens as topicality. It should come down to a debate about who has the better vision for debate.

Have fun.