Tinker,+Andrew


 * Overview**

I debated for three years in high school policy, breaking at national tournaments such as Berkeley and Whitman. I've also debated parli for a year now in college, where I've also broken at national tournaments such as the Mile High Swing. In that time I've run and won on positions as straight up as heg, econ, and politics or alternative as performance affs or 5 minutes of T in the 2NR. Ultimately, I default to offense/defense paradigm in weighing impacts, which I derive from the impact calculus presented in round.


 * Topicality / Theory**

I'm willing to pull the trigger on T against the aff, regardless of whether or not I personally feel that the aff is topical. I default to competing interpretations. For me to vote neg on T in a round under reasonability, my litmus test is to have abuse on the flow. For me to vote neg on T in a round competing interpretations, I still think having proven abuse is useful although I default to the standards flow. I'll evaluate RVI's, but mostly I feel they're counterproductive and don't substantiate the debate. I'm fine with the aff perming interpretations and I think it's a good way to gain defense. I find limits and ground to be the most compelling standards and fairness and education to be the most compelling voters; most other standards are derived in some way from those two, I find. Uniquely non-compelling standards are framer's intent and "common man."


 * Framework**

Much of the way I evaluate framework comes from how I evaluate topicality. However, here I strictly have a preference towards teams with frameworks that are inclusive of both sides. In my mind, framework is just another form of impact calculus that tells me what form of impacts I should evaluate first - discursive, ethical, violence-based, value to life claims, etc. Framework shouldn't be the be all, end all in terms of impact calculus, but just the start of good analysis.


 * Counterplans**

Counterplans that solve all or part of case are easier to weigh, and therefore for me to judge. I'm not afraid to judge theory debates, but I tend to err negative in any debate on theory for any given counterplans, however this flips aff when there are multiple counterplans in round. PICs and delay counterplans are fine, but I also err aff on them. That said, just because I err aff doesn't mean I won't vote on them - I've run and won on illegitimate counterplans before and have no problem rewarding teams that can run them well. I default to functional competition.


 * Disadvantages / Case Arguments**

The standard wisdom is that disadvantages are best run as net benefits to a counterplan. In my debate career, this is generally something I agree with, but I'll also add that a DA + case arguments (even better if the DA turns case) is a very compelling strategy. Though this is a general truth, I feel like it comes out best in case and DA debates - I love comparative evidence analysis. A card's existence in round shouldn't be covered merely by the tagline, and I'm sympathetic towards an aff team that doesn't read any cards on a wacky DA if they make good, warranted analytics and attack the negative's evidence. I applaud the bravado of straight turning a DA, and I think some of the most nitty gritty debates happen here, which I appreciate.


 * Kritiks on the Neg**

I'm a big fan of the kritik, which is good for the neg. Specifically, though, I'm a fan of the kritik that teams can actually understand and explain coherently, so if the neg is purposely obfuscating and not being clear I give the aff a lot more credibility even if there arguments aren't entirely responsive. Mostly what this means is that I give any aff framework answers more weight, but I still think that having some responsiveness is important. Kritiks that I'm particularly familiar with - gendered language, intersectionality, security, Schmitt, anthropocentrism, cap, and Nietzsche.


 * Kritiks on the Aff**

I'm sympathetic towards kritiks on the aff, but I especially think it's important for them to have some relation to the topic. This doesn't need to be extensively developed, a couple lines is usually sufficient for me. I don't appreciate the clash of civilizations debates. I find it much more responsive for teams to actually respond to the affirmative's claims at some level, even if this is just to prove abuse on the framework flow.


 * Speaker Points**

Speaker points are a game of deductions. Things that will definitely get you deductions - not signposting, not being clear, jumping around on the flow, being rude to the other team (some smugness is fine), etc. Things that will endear me to score you higher are clear (but quick) overviews, a good taste of humor, and applicable puns.