Levy,+Joel

 I am open to all types of arguments and think that all arguments have merit as long as they are executed properly. Don’t withhold from reading arguments because you think I would be ideologically opposed to them. I strongly believe that a debater’s ultimate responsibility is to convince the Judge that they should win. Regardless if your opponents or you think you may have won, if you fail to convince the judge you have failed.  Some notes about specific arguments:  K’s – I think that kritiks serve an important role in debate and if wielded effectively can be extremely successful. With that said, I am not that well versed in some of the literature or lingo you may reference. So explain your arguments thoroughly as it will increase the chances you win and increase your speaker points.  Performance/ No plan affs - I do not have a strong pre-disposition regarding whether or not these types of arguments should be allowed in debate. I think that there are flaws in the way debate currently operates but at the same time great benefits. If the affirmative team properly deploys their criticism and is a relevant discussion of the topic then I am inclined to allow these types of arguments.  Theory – I love good theory debates. I am generally aff leaning on the majority of theory questions. Having a solvency advocate for the process or mechanism of the CP will greatly help your chances in justifying the CP. On a side note, Conditionality is good, but can be abused sometimes.