Powell,+Dylan

__**Short Version:**__ 1. I'm fine with just about any argument, or any theory you want to run against any argument, the round is up to you. 2. Clash is the most important thing in the round. Prepared overviews are great, but only when round-specifics are added in as well. Line-by-line is very important. 3. In the end, tell me how to vote. I like good overviews with comparative impact calculus that also draws in line-by-line from the rest of the flow. Don't just talk about your impacts, but talk about how they interact with your opponents' as well. 4. Don't say your opponents dropped an argument that they didn't. You will lose speaks.

__**General**__ I'm a former Sioux Falls Lincoln policy debater, I just graduated last year (09/10). I've debated in very conservative South Dakota tournaments as well as very liberal national tournaments and debate camp, so I'm fine with any argument. As a debater, I hated interventionist judges, so I'm not going to say that I favor any side in particular on most T, CP, or K arguments. If you want to run anything, just run it and be able to defend its fairness in the round, I won't hold you back. Make the round whatever you want it to be. As an overall paradigm, I'm Tab Ros, default policymaker. I hope that I don't have to default any way, however, and that debaters will actually be persuasive in their overviews telling me how to vote. In the late rebuttals then, you should make sure to tell me what paradigm to vote by, why you win it, and be specific to the round. Don't simply read a pre-written block that says why you won everything ignoring your opponents. Be specific to the round, and give comparative impact calculus that references your opponents' arguments as well.

The most important thing for me is clash. If have a great pre-written blocks that are really good at summarizing your points but completely ignore your opponents' actual arguments, then use them, but you have to directly respond to your opponents points as well. If you're just reading a speech without actually debating directly against an opponent, then that isn't really debate. As such, flowing is important.

My biggest pet peeve is when debaters say that their opponents dropped an argument that they didn't actually drop. This tells me that either A. You're bad at flowing B. You're bad at debating so you decided to just ignore it and hope it goes away C. You have prewritten blocks that are only prepared to debate bad teams, or D. Some combination of the above. None of these say good things about you as a debater and your speaker points will reflect that. If your opponent actually did drop a point, feel free to point it out and say why it's important, but please don't lie about it, your speaker points will suffer if you do.

Speed is fine unless it's an issue such as T or Theory with very short points, and as long as you slow down on tags. Otherwise, go as fast as you want as long as you're clear. If you're going paperless and need time to jump files, I'll try to be understanding to some degree, but it doesn't mean that you get infinite prep.

__**Kritiks**__ I'm fine with most mainstream Ks, if you want to run something, it's probably okay. That said, if you want to run theory against Ks, then I'm fine with that too. Once again, make the round whatever you want it to be. I'm not a huge fan of performance affs, or really crazy kritiks however. It's not that you can't win with them, it's just harder when I haven't heard of the theory before and it's really far out there. Rule of thumb: if you're the only team that runs the K, think twice about using it. I'll listen to it, and I won't simply vote you down right away, it will just be an uphill battle if you have to spend a really long time just to help me understand what you're talking about. When running kritiks in front of me, make sure that the alt solves, the link is specific, and be clear about whether it is either pre-fiat or post-fiat early on. Many debaters say that it's both, but I know you aren't going to develop and close for both pre or post, so pick one and maintain a coherent story.

__**Topicality**__ Topicality is a good strategy if you're good at it. I'm not going to take sides on competing interpretations, reasonability, or the need for in-round abuse, that's up for the debaters to prove in-round. If you're going to go for T though, you have to go for it. 0:30 in the 2NR won't be enough. When debating T, speak slower than you otherwise would, T points are far shorter, and impossible to flow if you go too fast. If you rattle off 3 one-sentence answers to each of their 3 standards on T going as fast as you can, I just won't have it on my flow. T when run as a timesuck is annoying and could hurt your speaks. If you run a T as a legitimate argument and end up deciding to go for something else in the 2NR, that's okay, just don't shell out three 15 second Ts in the 1NC.

__**Counterplans**__ Much like kritiks, I'm fine with counterplans, I'm also fine with counterplan theory. The neg can run 5 conditional counterplans in front of me if you can prove that it's theoretically fair, or the aff can prove that even one conditional counterplan is unfair. Conditionality, CP topicality, PICs: I'm not taking sides, just win it in-round.

__**Disadvantages**__ I like them. I personally find extensive, specific scenarios more persuasive than blippy generics. Interesting disad debate doesn't come from running a lot of bad disads but from knowing scenarios really well. That being said, if the aff doesn't point out the obvious holes in a bad generic DA, then I obviously won't intervene. When reading DA overviews, pre-written blocks are helpful, but comparative impact calculus is even better. Line-by-line is huge. If you run politics: there is more to uniqueness than just the date, and you should know the difference between bi-partisanship, political capital, and public support scenarios.

__**Theory**__ If you're going to run theory, you have to do it well. Most theory debates come down to each team reading and extending their own blocks without clash, and with debate jargon being thrown around without any real explanation or warrants. A good theory debate is very fun to watch, but a bad one can be painful, and leaves the judge with no way to resolve the debate without intervention. A good theory argument should have an explicit interpretation, a clear violation, and well-explained standards/voters. Saying "and my 9: conditionality is bad, it forces us to debate in multiple worlds, voter for fairness and education" is not a persuasive argument. Independent voters when used as a cheap way to win a round on a small technicality are bad arguments that, when not fully developed, are very unpersuasive. As with any theory argument, if they're well explained then they can be round-winners, but I rarely see that in an independent voter debate. ASPEC is a bad argument and rounds about it aren't interesting to watch. It's right up there with "RVI on T" for worst theory argument, and it would take a lot to win a round on it. Other than those two, I'm really open to anything on theory, just know how to debate theory well.

__**Cross-x**__ I'm fine with partner cross-x as long as it isn't excessive. I've seen rounds where the person sitting down literally does ALL the talking, and that would certainly detract from speaker points, but other than that, it's completely fine. I like aggressive cross-x as long as it's intelligent. If you're being a jerk about something you're wrong about, then that's bad. If, however, you find bad highlighting, there's an in-round contradiction, or there's some other genuinely important point that you're right about, feel free to pressure them on it.