Stransky,+Alex

BACKGROUND
**__High School:__** Green Valley (Nevada) __**College:**__ University of Texas __**Experience:**__ Four years in high school, third year in college __**Round Judged on Current **** topic (Economic Engagement): **__ 15+

SHORT

 * 1) Read whatever you want in front of me--I'll evaluate anything, anywhere, anytime
 * 2) Think about the big picture
 * 3) I will vote on zero risk of a link/solvency
 * 4) Internal links are more important than impacts
 * 5) Arguments = claim, warrant, and impact
 * 6) Don't be a jerk

LONG
__**General Stuff: **__
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; line-height: 1.5;">Arguments = claim, warrant, and impact--blippy claims without warranted analysis won’t make it to my flow. Well-articulated arguments with warrants will.
 * I am more willing to vote on zero risk of a link or zero risk of solvency than most people. One well placed solvency argument on the case/one no link argument can take out an entire advantage/disad if that argument is articulated well enough in comparison the arguments that your opponents are making. This is merely an extension of my belief that debater spin is more important than the evidence—just because you have made an argument in the debate does not mean that you automatically win a risk of the impact to that argument.
 * Internal links are more important than impacts—especially for impacts like hegemony, the internal links are crucial in the weight I give the impact. This does not mean that I think that squirrely affs are bad—it just means that a squirrely aff should have very specific internal links and impact scenarios, which are often more strategic and harder to handle for your opponents.
 * Speaker points--my interpretation of speaker points is a measurement of your overall communicative ability. This means I value structure, organization, and efficiency as well as strategy and intelligence. I probably average around a 28.
 * I firmly believe that the rules for debate are up for debate--I check all predispositions at the door and leave the rest up to you in order to determine how I evaluate the round.
 * You clip, you get zero points and a loss. You accuse someone of clipping and they didn't, you get zero points and a loss.

**__Specific Arguments:__**
 * __ Topicality __ : I am more aff leaning in terms of the reasonability debate than most--this does not mean that I am unwilling to evaluate the topicality debate, rather that the impact of the negative interpretation versus the affirmative interpretation needs to be clearly articulated in order to justify why I should not default reasonability. CI: only our aff is topical isn’t an argument.
 * __K Affs:__ K affs are cool and don't necessarily have to read a plan text or even affirm the resolution—in fact, it can often be more strategic not to read a plan text with some critical affirmatives. I primarily read critical affirmatives in high school. Having said that, I think that the aff must be germane to the resolution (in some way) and advocate something.
 * __Framework:__ I enjoy a good framework debate probably more than most--I think that the debate about debate is not only interesting but also an important one to have. I think a good framework debate requires good impact comparison (i.e. education vs fairness) as well as in depth analysis of competing interpretations.
 * Role of the ballot: I think this should be an important issue in many debates but it is often-times self-serving. Don't feel that you need to have a role of the ballot--in a lot of cases, you may just want me to evaluate who did the better debating and that is just fine. Also, do not think that just because they have dropped the role of the ballot it means that you've won the debate--it must be provided with a justification in order for it to be the nexus issue in my decision.
 * __<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Neg Stuff: __
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Critiques: This is the area that I am most familiar with. It comprises most of my 2NR's but that doesn't mean that you should adopt this form of debate because of me. Also, don't just assume because I like the K that it means that I'm familiar with your specific argument. Although I've heard of a lot of stuff and am open to really anything, that doesn't substitute in for adequate explanation on your part
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Counterplans: Not a big fan of conditions, consult, and other normal means counterplans or agent CPs and tend to side aff on theory on a lot of these issues--this isn't to say they're unwinnable, just that it may require a bit of theoretical justification if you're negative. I do think that a PIC with strategically well-defined and specific competition can be one of the most interesting aspects of debate and love seeing this type of debate.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Disads: Although I don't go for these arguments as often, I do like a good disad debate. As noted above, I do put a premium on the internal links over the impacts because I think that disads are increasingly moving in a contrived direction that hyper-inflates impacts. That isn't to say that I don't value impact calculus--it means that just because you do great impact calc doesn't necessarily mean that you have necessarily won the impact debate.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">__Theory:__ I typically default to reject the argument (except for conditionality) unless there is a specific warrant as to why the team should be rejected. I am, however, a huge fan well-warranted tricky theory arguments. Couple of things:
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Please slow down before you spread that theory block--I'm not the fastest flow in the world and I'm definitely not going to get the six sub-points you put on Normal Means CPs bad if you read them in ten seconds.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Conditionality: I tend to err neg on a lot of conditionality arguments although I think that more than two conditional advocacies may be pushing it (obviously up for debate). I think that competing interpretations is important on theory and, if characterized properly, can win or lose you the debate.

__**<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Other Things: **__
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Think big picture—make sure you take into account all nexus issues when framing the last two rebuttals—spending 30 seconds of your final rebuttal framing the debate can often be far more important than anything anybody says in the entire debate.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Other stuff:
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Be nice but don't be afraid to get aggressive—there is a fine line that I have been told I cross more than occasionally, but please try to keep everything civil. Just know that I understand you may have to get aggressive sometimes to make your point.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">If you are the aggressive type, make sure you check yourself—slurs regarding someone’s gender, race, or sexual orientation are never appropriate.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> I enjoy humor in the debate—if you have a joke to make about me, please do—if it’s incorporated well I will laugh. If you wish to make a joke about your opponents because you’re friends or something, that’s cool too—I might not laugh just because. If you aren’t funny, don’t try to be—it’s okay. Also see subpoint-b above with regard to use of humor.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">No prep for flashing—if people abuse this or it gets out of hand then it might change to when the flash drive leaves the computer, but for now it’s all good.