Pinto,+Daryl

Preferences: I prefer that the aff defend a topical plan of action implemented by the USFG. I prefer that the negative go for a competitive counter plan and a disad. I will reward negative teams that have intricate case responses and think that most neg's vastly under utilize how devastating a good case hit can be. Also love seeing a big impact turn debate.

I lean neg on most generic theory issues - conditionality/dispo/pics - I think that aff's can certainly reject the argument on these issues however, I rarely think its a reason to vote a team down. Other theory issues I'm more open on - condition/consult/50 state fiat - all these seem to be fairly "cheater"ish to me which means I probably lean aff on these issues. I'm still not entirely sure how a consult/condition cp is competitive which means the perm is generally a smart idea for the aff.

I would consider myself fairly knowledgeable on mainstream critical args - cap/biopower/coercion/D&G - it's important that the negative team explain how the alt either solves all the aff or turns the aff. But mostly I'm just a D&G hack. Most affs generally screw up critiques because they don't handle the question of "methodology/epistemology" very well in the 2ac. Probably smart for aff teams to get those issues clarified in cross-ex.

In general, do what youre good at, I'm open to most anything, just make sure to be civil and have fun. Any other questions feel free to ask.