James,+Kevin

In general, I am open to all arguments, I believe that every argument has value but it is up to the debater to
 * 1) Determine what that value is
 * 2) Communicate what impact the argument have in the round.

I do however tend to swing more towards traditional policy options due to my experiences as a high school policy debater, however I am not against voting for more critical affirmatives. If teams choose to run these affirmatives, I like to see a great impact analysis towards the end of the debate. A good affirmative/a great debater should be able to apply their advantages in any situation.

To me a great impact analysis levels the playing field.

On that point, I examine topicality as a gateway issue. If a neg team runs a T argument it is the burden of the affirmative to meet the violation. This is important!

In terms of Kritiks, I value a well explained Kritiks, If rejection is the alternative, please explain what that means, how do you access solvency?

I am not a fan of excessive flashing so try and keep it to a minimum.

Finally in terms of speed reading please slow down on tags, authors and dates. Other than that feel free to speed through the text.