Stenger,+Sean

Sean Stenger
I'm a default policy maker and place most emphasis on impact comparison.

I default to competing interpretations on topicality. I will listen to reasonability, but it's your job to provide comparative reasons for one or the other.

I am not super familiar with critical literature, but I still consider myself open to, and easily persuaded by critiques. If this is your most comfortable strategy, I would ask you try and do more than average explanation of the argument and literature, and provide detailed links as well as an in depth explanation of the alternative.

I am most comfortable with counter plan/disad debates.

I think conditionality is usually good, but multiple conditional strategies, especially those that conflict with one another, are more susceptible to conditionality bad arguments. I will listen to theory arguments.

Please ask questions about specific issues.