Saeedipour,+Sirus

I default to a **policy maker** paradigm and most of my decision making results from **impact** weighing/comparison.

I’m not a huge fan of **topicality** – I feel like it’s a waste of time, and if the Affirmative team is blatantly untopical and the Negative says that, I will usually vote Negative and base my decision on the interpretation of resolution/plan (I’m not a big fan of K-Affs at all).

By default, I don’t really like **Kritiks**, but sometimes enjoy a K debate if the K isn’t too wacky (ie, I’m probably not going to vote for a discourse K). I’ve voted on Ks before, but that’s because the teams that run it sufficiently explain the aff’s link and describe how the alt is needed in a very clear and cogent manner.

I am most comfortable judging **DA** and **CP** debates. Make sure the CP plan solves the aff, __as well as has a net benefit__.

I tend to not like **conditional arguments**. That said, I’m not saying that you can’t run 3 CPs and I’ll vote against you for it, but if the other team clearly convinces me that conditionality is unfair and how you clearly link to the impacts of it, I’ll likely err against the conditional team.

This leads me to **theory**. I love a good theory debate – meaning, you can’t only say something just //is// – you have to talk about why it’s important to you and why I should vote on it.