Korab,+Sam

Sam Korab Affiliation: Weston HS, MA

My general approach is traditional policy making, however I can and will do something different given a reason for something else. Policymaking is simply what I do left to my own devices; do what you like as long as you have warrants/reasons. The following is intended to give you an idea how I evaluate arguments. I apply a rather standard risk calculus to disadvantages. I pay lots of attention to uniqueness. I will assign zero risk to a disad if the affirmative wins appropriate answers; I do not believe in residual/magical risk. For me, uniqueness is often the deciding factor in a link vs. link turn debate. Pretty much any type of counter plan supported with literature is presumptively fine with me; this includes pics. Likewise, dispositional/conditional counter plans are acceptable. However, developed theory arguments can change my mind. Criticism/Kritik: I do not think you have to have an alternative; from my point of view, rejection can be enough. If you do have an alternative please be specific in terms of it functions. I would be happy to hear a critique that is a net benefit to a counter plan. I am open to performance, but need structured reasons to vote for whatever you do. Theory: I require developed argumentation to vote here. You have to have a warrant and a decent extension, not simply a blip with the words voting issue. Topicality: I tend to apply competing interpretations as opposed to giving the affirmative leeway. This is only my predisposition; I will listen to critiques of interpretations and arguments as to the absence of abuse. I really like case debate. Unique solvency turns are especially welcome. You are more than welcome to argue about inherency in front of me. Miscellaneous: There are two things debaters should do for me: 1 slow down and enunciate taglines. 2. Emphasize key words in evidence. I will yell clear if I cannot understand you. I sometimes read evidence after the round, although I have been calling for fewer cards lately. I am glad to answer reasonable questions before or after a debate. Please be civil, have fun, and work hard.