Nikolopoulos,+Derrick

Topicality – I am a bad judge for crappy T arguments that attempt to beat mainstream affs on cheap shots. If an aff is really not T, you should go for T If an aff is T, don’t go for T just because it seems like an easier 2NR. I also think that competing interps are a good thing. It will also be hard to win my ballot on a "K of T"

Counterplans – I have no problem with most common counterplans such as PICs, agent counterplans, counterplans, and consult. I will vote on cp theory however.

Disads – I don’t have much to say on this issue, aside from the fact that affs need to answer “DA turns the case,” and negatives should not rely on that argument to function as your sole defense against the case.

Kritiks – I’m not going to pretend I’m a great judge for these arguments. But If you’re determined to go for the K in front of me, you need to a) clearly explain the link to the plan, and b) clearly articulate what your alternative does. You should not forget about the aff – explain how your alternative is competitive with the aff solvency arguments, their advantages, etc. If your a team that goes for the K a majority of the time, it is probably a good idea to strike of not even pref me.

Kritik Affs – It’s really really hard to convince me that the aff should not have to defend a plan.

Affs that Criticize Debate or the Topic – I like debate. I’m not convinced that anything about the structure or rules of debate is bad. That being said, I believe that just like any game, things can be unfair. This obviously impact who has more resources, who is more likely to win, etc. I’m not convinced that reading an aff that criticizes the rules of debate is the best strategy to fix any of these problems, or is an even a productive exercise in furthering an end-game other than winning. It would be a difficult sell to convince me otherwise.

Performance: I'm less likely than most to be persuaded that performance is a viable approach to the activity, or that affs without plans are topical. In fact, if you really want to "perform", I'm a good person to strike. Don't worry, I won't be insulted. Strike away, if this is what you want to do...

Theory Args: As for topicality, I fall in the offense/defense camp - it seems that the only way to evaluate whether a standard is reasonable or whether a definition provides appropriate limits is to assess how the definition/standard combination effect the fair division of ground... and offense/defense seems a good way to figure that out. I basically do what the debaters ask - and have no problem voting on theory args if they're won ... (such as that conditionality outweighs T).

Perm Theory: it is really had to convince me that multiple perms are bad ageist a K. it is also really hard to convince me that timeframe perms are bad. The best way to win the perm is to provide me with a clear solvency deficit or give a good Net Benefit to the perm.

Speaking: If you're not clear, I'll tell you. Also, I don’t really care if your “heated” or rude, but if you are hitting a team who is just worst then you are there is no need to be rude and if you are I hope you don’t care about speaker points.

Long tags—I’m NOT a fan of really long tags, they are hard to flow and often confusing. Try to keep the tags at 7-10 words in front of me. That being said I understand that a lot of cards can be hard to explain in 10 words but a lot of cards can be, so if they can please do.

Other- 1. Truth- Wile truth makes me warm and fussy inside, I do not feel it is alone to vote on. 2. The best way to win- provide plenty of offence, also that I tend to vote on the biggest impact. 3. V2L- I do not believe that No V2L is more persuasive then a nice terminal impact like extinction