Ivanovic,+Sasha

I’ll vote on anything because you should debate how/where you're best, but that doesn't mean I don't have preferences

CPs //should// be both functionally and textually competitive. I think process, consult, and some agent counterplans are sketch but I’ll listen to them.

Also I won’t kick your counterplan for you if you lose the counterplan but win a disad in the rebuttals.

Disads: I prefer good evidence over a slew of bad cards.. . Links should be good because that determines the risk of your impacts; but I do believe an aff can be zero risk and that the “any risk” logic is silly.

Critiques: They’re fantastic. I can be persuaded to vote for any critique, as long as I understand it.

Topicality: I enjoy a good topicality debate, but please if the aff is clearly topical don’t read something dumb just for the sake of reading T. I’ll default to reasonability unless you convince me otherwise (competing interpretations)

Theory: I can be persuaded to vote either way on most arguements. Proven abuse rather than potential justifications do help. Also please be neat in the line by line.

How I vote: I’ll go by the flow and decide based on framing questions/impact calc, means this should hopefully be in every debate.