Boyd,+Chrissy

T: I often think T devolves into tagline extensions and unwarranted theory arguments. I think T should be debated like a disad flow, meaning there should be links and impacted abuse. That being said, I'm not against T and will evaluate it based on the flow, but I do prefer an actual abuse story. I think a good T debate requires extreme technical proficiency as well as explanation.

Theory: I'll admit that I was not a theory debater and will wince if theory is a major strategy. I evaluate it by the flow and I recognize it as a strategic last ditch option, but I find it teams who do it routinely lazy.

K's: I am open to all forms of critical debate (in round discourse, performance, etc.). Affirmative "A2: K's" blocks are not persuasive to me. Just as critical teams are expected to engage your politics scenario I think affirmatives carry the burden of engaging the philosophy, methodology, ethics, etc. of the K. I draw no distinction between these two forms of education. I think the team running a critical argument also carries the burden of explaining the links and impacts of the K as much as a politics link scenario. Putting a generic K in the context of the round and altering your overviews is extremely effective in front of me. Framework and the alternative method of solvency also needs to be justified. I think this is the crux of critical arguments and important to cover.

CP's: I'm down with any counterplan but I am persuaded by PICs bad theory and am lenient towards 50 state fiat and international fiat theory. Very persuaded by process counterplan theory. I don't believe these counterplans prove the aff to be a bad idea. I will of course try to be a blank slate in any debate, but I think it's important to make debaters aware of my biases. I prefer a coherent strategy with clear net benefits that you invest time in. I love case specific counterplan strategies and will reward case specific research.

DA's: I don't think there's much to say here. I will evaluate all disadvantages. I love overviews that explain impacts and are modified for weighing against the aff. Once again, I find it compelling when impacts are contextualized within the round and it's not a pre-made block v. block war.