Dornon,+Andrew

=**Andrew Dornon**=

=
- **Theory**: I will vote on any theoretical obligation that is well warranted for a vote. Theory can also target exclusion of advantages or other arguments. **//Comparing interpretations and standards is essential//** to a good theory debate. **//Dropped//** theory arguments are easy ways to //**lose**// in front of me, the less work I have to do the better, but impact them well.======

=
- **Topicality**: I find myself being quite receptive to good T arguments. Make sure to **//explain exactly what your interpretation is//** and what it allows and disallows, as well as why this is important. However, I won’t vote for just any T voter, no matter how legitimate, if the affirmative can prove it is **//illegitimate or unwarranted//**.=====

=
- **Kritiks**: I do vote on critical arguments fairly often. It’s important to explain how you want your arguments to function, clearly articulate the link stories and the implications. Kritiks are powerful, //**except**// when an inexperienced and poorly read debater //**tries to read advanced philosophy as fast as he/she can without explaining it.**//=====

=
- **Counterplans**: Make your net benefits clear and make sure to **//weigh any solvency deficit.//** I feel relatively strongly that all **//permutations need to have actual texts.//** I will listen and potentially vote for any type of counterplan, though I tend to give less weight to consult counterplans and process counterplans as the evidence is generally not as specific to the Aff plan.=====