Bolender,+Cameron

=
Paradigm: Conventional policy maker. I feel that we gather as an academic community to further our education of and refine our individual advocacy of social and security policy. As such, I see this purpose of debate manifested in taking a stance on that results in either action or inaction, relating to the resolution topic. I look for the affirmative to propose and defend action by the US Federal Government as if it were to occur in life, post an affirmative ballot. I look for the negative to critically analyze both the warrant for the action and the plan mechanism. Methodology is an important consideration for me, but falls secondary to evaluating the effectiveness of aff solvency and their constituent advantage internal links.=====

=
Conditionality: This is an important consideration for me, I assign the dispositionality of an argument with the action/inaction inherent in the claims. For example, on K, if the Alt is 'do nothing,' then I am comfortable with conditionality. But if the neg runs a counterplan, then I find that support for the competitive action must persist throughout the round. I hold the aff to the same standard, and typically default to multiple perms on the K and/or CP to be plausibly abusive. Essentially, by entering the round the teams have consensually joined a social contract to talk about what we talk about. In a sense, this is the manner in which I prefer depth over breadth in your argumentation.=====

Topicality: My preference for depth, both in topic area literature and in compounding offensive strategies, burdens the affirmative with demonstrating action that specifically joins the essential verb and noun(s) of the resolution. Establishing limits that are well supported by grammar and logic are very compelling to me. I find that this gives our community the greatest immersion in the actions of the resolution and focuses the debate on the warrants of the verb, instead of crowding the topic with iterations of topic area authors and conflations that risk losing the contextual basis for our argumentation. I see the consequence of this trend to be the rise of the K debate, especially where the epistemology of the aff speakers is highlighted by the plan advantages, as opposed to the effectiveness of the solvency mechanisms. In such cases I default to giving greater weight to the K alt of 'do nothing' over a questionably topical advantage impact.

Kritik: I will evaluate a K debate wholly on the offense contained within the action of the Alt, and the internal consistency the Alt represents as a function of the entire negative strategy.