Gardner,+David

I debate policy for 2 years for highland highschool and wrote argument for missouri states debate team in 2009. I Am familiar with the topic this year having lived with a highschool coach, but have not judged any round on it this year. General:

- I will always vote for the team that I believe has won the debate based on the arguments presented in the speeches

- I will default to impact calculus unless another framework is won

- A unanswered argument is a true argument and Topicality:

- The neg must win a clear violation and substantial offense that proves their interp sets the best limit on the resolution

- I have a soft spot for T as a strategic option and will not protect your because it "feels" topical if losing the argument Counterplans:

- Theory arguments and permutations are legitimate reasons to throw out a counterplan if they are won.

- Conditionality is good but you can convince me otherwise. Critiques:

- Neg K teams win by (1) beating "case outweighs," (2) solving the case/making it irrelevant, (3) other tricks

- Aff teams against the K win by (1) winning the case/outweighing the K, (2) attacking alt solvency, (3) not missing the tricks Disadvantages/Advantages:

- "Uniqueness first" and inane impact distinctions have become too central to modern debate- that being said:

- Controlling the frame for how I evaluate the components of the advantage/disad is important and will be rewarded

- If there is no link there is no link

- "Try or die" (if it is actually try or die) is very persuasive