Metzman,+Corey

Please establish a clear decision calculus that I should use to weigh competing arguments, making clear the distinction between this first-order level of the debate (e.g., standards, burdens, their warrants, etc.) and the second-order level containing most of your arguments. Failing to resolve the first-order level of the round makes it very difficult for me to compare arguments cleanly and predictably. Please weigh not only your "substantive" (i.e., second-order) arguments against those of your opponent, but also the quality of your first-order arguments supporting your particular framework against the quality of your opponent's objections. This all seems very simple, but too often debaters are dragged into the line-by-line debate at the expense of making explicit framework comparisons and constructing argument hierarchies.

I dislike the frequency with which theory is run when there is no real or in-round abuse, and therefore have a relatively high threshold for voting on it. I am open to theory arguments about potential abuse (i.e., those based on competing interpretations) only in rounds where it is absolutely clear that absent such a theory argument, your opponent would have behaved unfairly. Nonetheless, if you are running a truly abusive position, I will not hesitate to vote on a specific and well-designed theory objection.

The quality of your arguments is much more important to me than the number of arguments you make. As such, I am quite receptive to arguments in the 1AR and subsequent speeches that your opponent's objections were not responsive to your original claims in the AC or NC, although please do not use this as an excuse to dismiss relevant answers. However, I do not think it is "extending through ink" to reiterate and extend an original claim after demonstrating that you opponent's objections were not directly responsive.