Arton,+Michael

I am neither a theory-phile nor a theory-phobe. When executed properly and in appropriate circumstances, I believe theory can be a useful and necessary part of defining the "rules of the game." Please reserve your use of theory for these situations. In nearly every case, I will require that a clearly articulated abuse story is present in order to evaluate the theory argument, but this can take the form of in-round abuse. Please just be clear in what you are talking about and why it's important. In general, I am not a big fan of theory-baiting or a blatant attempt to "out-tech" your opponent. If it's not necessary, don't do it. Be reasonable and you'll be fine.
 * Theory arguments**

As should be plainly obvious, you need to be clear if you are going fast. I prefer good debate, and I believe that can take the form of fast or slow debate. If you are going to engage in spreading a host of bad arguments, that will impact your speaker points even if you get the win. Please be clear with tags, authors, etc., so I can easily reference your arguments relative to the answers and signpost more clearly the faster you go. Speed is not an excuse to omit warrants, skip extensions, or otherwise be blippy. I'm not a fan of the "throw a bunch of random answers to a case and see what sticks" strategy. Also, please be wary of extending through ink, claiming that answers are non-responsive (and making non-responsive answers), and calling arguments turns that aren't turns.
 * Speed**

I am not predisposed (either in favor or opposed) to alternative strategies in principle. However, I will hold you to the standards of argument that apply to the strategy you've chosen. I presume that we default to the value premise/criterion model unless some other evaluative metric is presented. Certain alternative strategies have inherent structures that are important: kritiks must have links, impacts, and an alternative; counterplans must be net-beneficial, mutually exclusive, etc. Off case arguments--as debaters like to call them--seem to me to just function as disadvantages to the case unless otherwise explained. Anything that you label as "independent" should have an independent evaluatory mechanism. I still don't know what an //a priori//argument is, and I am not a big fan of them; however I won't ignore them if they are warranted and unanswered. Just because you label something as "pre-standards" or "//a priori//" doesn't make it so. You need to warrant the argument and explain the evaluation method. I am not impressed by debaters who attempt to win the round before they walk in. Employing that strategy may garner a win from me, but do not expect high speaker points with that win. Also, I'm not sure what overviews unless they serve some specific argumentative function, so just call them what they are and debate them as such. Finally, please be sure that positions you run are well-explained and have a function in the round. If I don't get it, I can't vote for it.
 * Alternative argumentative strategies (K, CP, DA, etc)**

I attempt to evaluate the arguments given your order of operations. I will certainly be receptive to any manner of weighing the round. The more incompatible your strategies, however, the fewer you should run, the clearer your explanation needs to be, and the lower my threshold is for accepting a theory argument. Evaluating arguments is typically relative to the round, but arguments that are clearly impacted and weighed relative to a standard are usually very important. In general, I don't tend to "pull the trigger" on an isolated extension if it's not impacted and applied to the overall set of arguments. In other words, I am not a fan of "cheap" strategies. Impact calculus is really important for every set of arguments in the debate.
 * Evaluating the round**