Tahmoressi,+Michael


 * || [[image:http://www.wikispaces.com/i/edit.png width="128" height="37" caption="Edit This Page" link="http://robomicheal.wikispaces.com/page/edit/home"]]First and foremost I feel like its important to say that I feel like debate is up to the debaters to determine. I come into a round with no pre determined ideas what debate is and I wont impress my views on the debate. That being said I know that isn’t enough and ill put forward some ideas of what I like to hear on certain arguments

Topicality: if you want me to vote negative on t in a debate round I need to know why your interp matters I like clear standards debates because thats usually where i find myself voting on t. I like discussions of education with topicality because it seems like that is the biggest impact to t. that being said I believe the fairness and predictability are good internal links to education and that you can way those standards in a way that it impacts education.

Disads: i am willing to by terrible internal link stories as long as they aren’t questioned by the other team I believe its the other teams job to make no internal link arguments and if they don’t I will presume that there has to be an internal link. On discussion of impacts I as long as you win the framework question that your nuclear or extinction impacts matter I will way them. But I don’t believe that one disad can outweigh a normal affirmative unless there is case turns or case arguments or counterplan I think that timeframe and probability arguments are more important in discussion of disad impacts and that is probably where you are going to persuade me the best if it is a disad/case round or counterplan round.

Counterplans: there cool I will presume negative on solvency until its contested in the 2ac. The counterplan has to have a net benefit for me to vote neg. I am pretty open to these arguments. I don’t mind listening to hard core theory debates.

Ks: I run kritiks alot and understand them pretty well. I wont do work for you in questions of link. I like good link anaylsis and impact stories. If the affirmative team doesn’t question the framework that your impacts are in I will give you desired weight on the impacts. I believe you need to be making case turn arguments so your alternative can solve a policy aff how ever that should be really easy because your links should function as internal link turns. I am willing to listen to perm theory but less open to listen to no alt text bad. I love the k if you mess it up it will probably hurt you.

Framework: I am pretty open either way. Policy kids your going to have to do more work for me why fairness and predictability outweigh education. I don’t like listening to generic ks like framework is exclusionary I think framework for the k should be more of a discussion of why your impacts matter as well as how political advocacy is effected by the debate. I like when people bring up framework so I can decide the round more objectivity so I wont have to do work for myself and hurt you. Being untopical is cool if your going to read give good reasons why you can be untopical. ||