Smith,+Tyler

I believe that the AFF should fulfil their burdens of topicality, solvency, inherency, and harms, but the NEG must make this articulation. On topicality I like to see proven abuse and I do not like time suck arguments, meaning, I will vote for an RVI. I would prefer that you not speed, but if you do it must be intelligible, you should know this I shouldn't have to say clear or speed. Failure to accommodate your opponent in this area will result in loss of speaker points and lack of flowing on my part. I am open to analytic arguments and all off-case arguments. But I will almost always prefer carded evidence. If you do not have a warrant to a claim, then you do not have an argument even if they drop it. I do not evaluate claims unless there are no real arguments in a round. Remember that a full argument consists of a claim supported by warrants with evidence.If using a plan then it should solve for the resolution, saying that advantages solve isn’t enough to meet that burden. I often vote for the one argument I can find that actually has an impact. I do not like moral obligations as I do not believe that they are usually warranted and I caution you in running these in front of me. I do not believe that all impacts have to go to extinction or nuclear war, but that they should be quantifiable in some manner. Impact calc is a MUST. This is the best way to ensure that I'm evaluating what you find to be the most important in the round.