Dlugas,+Matt

__**Who am I?**__ I am currently a student at Slippery Rock University studying Political Science, my debate background consists of 4 years debating on the National Circuit, 3 out of the 4 years being at the Varsity level. Please due note that since I'm no longer debating, I am not going to be up to speed on the hip-new lingo that y'all are throwing around so make sure you are able to explain your arguments in lay terms.

__**Things to do in Front of Me:**__ 1. Do impact calc. 2. Sign post. 3. Do impact calc. 4. Extend Warrants. 5. Do impact calc. 6. Be able to **explain** your arguments well. 7. Finally, do impact calc.

__**Rules? What are Rules?**__ I do run under the ideology that the only sets of rules in debate are speaker positions and speech times, although, those can be up for debate if you so please. If you're going to debate about the "rules of debate", then you need to give warranted analysis about why I should prefer your version of debate over theirs.

__**"Framework"**__ Specific arguments will be below, but I believe "framework" should be its own seperate entity and more towards the top because I think it is important. Even though I am generally tabula rasa and even leaning more towards the K on the terms of arguments that I will be more up to speed on due to the fact I still actively read "kritikal literature", I still find a well articulated framework argument as to why the affirmative needs to have an advocacy through the United States Federal Government is valuable and a portable skill in debate. **Now, don't take this as "I won't listen to your K-aff because you don't have a plan text.** If you are going to run an aff without a plan text in front of me you are just going to have to defend your version debate, again, there are no rules as to what you can and cannot do in debate. In regards to Race, I don't think "**Framework is racist, they are just trying to police us!"** Is going to be your strongest route to go in front of me. The most persuasive argument for a policy/resolutional based framework is that "We need a common starting point (i.e. the resolution)", but this can easily be combated by "the epistemology by which the resolution is grounded is flawed".

__**Cross-X**__ Yes, I understand a lot of judges do not listen to cross-x and don't treat it as something sacred but I do. I firmly believe that cross-x is an independent speech. The most persuasive questions are the ones when you point out something in the un-underlined and un-highlighted part of their card that THEY didn't even know about. I endorse Alternate Use Time in that you can use prep-time for more questions after cross-x has ended, I do not endorse the other parts in which you can drop cross-x all together for 3 extra minutes of prep time later in the debate. Lastly, don't take over in cross-x, unless your partner is literally about to tank the debate for you by conceding that your DA/K doesn't link or Plan doesn't solve or something of that nature, let them tough it out, it's the only way they'll get better. That being said, I do support Open Cross-X.

//__**Argument Specific:**__// __**General:**__ Run what you're good at, don't make seeing my name on the pairing make you change what you were going to run. Good analysis on shitty cards is better than shitty analysis on INSANE cards. I **will not** call for cards unless I think that **both teams** didn't do enough analysis.

__**Topicality:**__ "Does this smell topical?" - Nick Miller "T over Substance Bad" is rather persuasive. Slow down, spreading topicality is only going to lead to me missing something because of the short arguments T entails. Nobody gives a shit about your Reasonability claim if it isn't on my flow.

Hate politics but I do understand that sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do. Opens you up for one of my favorite arguments, impact turns. There must be an internal link chain and that internal link chain must me strong.
 * __Disads:__**

__**Counterplans:**__ "The best kind of counterplan is the kind of counterplan that makes your DA, //sweet.//" - Jason Sigalos (Swagalos) If you win that the counterplan is mutually exclusive, it's legit, but most aren't sooooooo.... we'll leave it at that.

__**Kritiks:**__ Have an overview - tell me if you need a completely new sheet of paper for it. Personally, I am not persuaded by links of omission or hyper-generic links, especially on criticisms like whiteness, feminism, or queer theory. What am I voting for? Make sure your alternative is something reasonable if you're going to be extending it into the 2NR. I generally err policy good on the framework debate, but it's not so far that you can't easily persuade me K Prior. I'm all for kicking the alternative and turning it into a disad to the aff, just make sure your link debate is REALLY good. Be able to articulate the criticism in cross x without buzzwords, if that's the only way you can explain it to me, you shouldn't be running the argument and I'm going to be very uncomfortable voting you up on the criticism. I'm going to go right out and say it, in 99.99% of instances, the affirmative should be allowed to weigh their advantages against the criticism, if your harms are as bad as you say they are, then that shouldn't be a problem. Everything aside, I love kritiks and the crazier the better, have fun with them, but don't have fun with Spanos because if debate is stupid why are you wasting your weekend doing it, stop trying to cheat the system and run a real argument.

__**Theory:**__ Must be substantive abuse in order for me to vote on it. I default to competing interpretations, doesn't mean I won't factor in reasonability if you give me a reason to.

//__** I will vote someone down and tank their speaks for any instance of racism or prejudice. **__//
 * ANY OTHER QUESTIONS THAT WEREN'T ANSWERED IN MY PHILOSOPHY YOU CAN E-MAIL ME.**

//__**Thank you and have a great day/evening!**__// //**- Matt Dlugas, Cathedral Prep (PA), Slippery Rock University (PA)**// //**Email(s):**// // **mtd1007@sru.edu** //