DeFilippis,+Evan

University of Oklahoma, Colleyville Heritage
Full disclosure: I've been out of the activity for about a year, and have done no research on the topic. Explain arguments a little bit more in detail than you would normally.

__**Overview:**__ -- All arguments are acceptable, but I want specific articulation of the link and lots of impact debate -- I have lots of preconceptions about arguments and debate (i.e. I think that most kritiks are not even arguments, most dis-ads are cartoonishly preposterous, and almost no impact in debate will ever happen to the degree conveyed), but I don't really care about any of that if you tell me to think otherwise.
 * --** I'm not amenable to stupid topicality or spec arguments or generic kritiks.

__**Points:**__ -- Average speaker point is 27.5. You get extra points for a) devastating cross-x's; b) strategically conceding opponent's arguments to get out of offense; c) having an incredibly thorough, specific, and well-thought out strategy.

__ **Style:** __ -- I like in-depth evidence debates. The more you explain why your evidence is better than theirs, the better. I want to hear why recency matters, why certain sources are better than others, I want comprehensive studies and meta-analyses. If you cut a card that is a one-sentence assertion from a blog post, I will grant it the same weight as an analytic assertion.

-- I do not evaluate arguments in the 2AR if they were not in the 1AR, unless they are a response to a new 2NR argument.

-- I evaluate evidence which is highlighted strategically and is made of sentence fragments on the same level of a piece of evidence that highlights the same sentence. However, warranted evidence always takes precedence over rhetorically powerful evidence.

__ **Theory/Topicality:** __

-- I default to an offense/defense framework on topicality. I went for topicality quite a lot in high school, so I have a high threshold for evaluating those debates. I want in-depth debate about why limits outweighs education, or vice versa, case-lists allowed by certain interpretations and why that hurts debate, permutations of interpretations, etc.

-- I don't care much for theory. Hard debate is good debate, unless you make it nearly impossible. 2 conditional counterplans is probably okay. I prefer that you avoid these debates. I don't necessarily view theory in an offense/defense framework... the offender doesn't necessarily have to prove that it's GOOD to violate a particular theory standard, just that they don't preclude competitive debate by doing so.

-- Read a topical aff.


 * __Kritik:__ **

-- I will only vote for a kritik if it is incredibly well-thought out, specific, has a meaningful impact, and an alternative that actually does something. I think most kritiks are interesting rhetorically, but are poorly actualized because I never hear explanations of what the world looks like in the context of the alternative.

__** Dis-ads: **__

-- I will vote on zero risk of a link. I hate stupid dis-ads, especially one sentence political capital DAs, and am very receptive to analytical defensive arguments. Dis-ads should be intrinsic to the plan action... i.e. it should be impossible to do the plan and have the same actor not engage in the scenario envisioned by the dis-ad.

--Your dis-ads should be specific and have a strong internal link.

-- I want so much impact calculus it hurts-- give historical examples, have evidential substantiation for time-frame arguments, explain why your impact subsumes theirs and is more credible, etc.

__** Counterplans. Great. **__

-- Try to make it specific.

__** Case. Great. **__

--However dont make it too muddled. Especially if you are impact turning. If so i prefer good amounts of impact calculus just like on a DA.