Smith,+Brian+(Cathedral+Prep)

= Brian D. Smith = (Cathedral Prep Graduate 2002 //John Carroll University Graduate 2007) I have done some work on the topic, but I probably don’t know the intricacies of every affirmative, or how most would be implemented in the real world. That being said, I doubt that there are many arguments that are beyond my ability to comprehend or follow. I will listen to kritiks but I expect the link to be rock solid, and impacts/alternative must be clearly explained. Language K’s can be dealt with in most all occasions by apologizing. I will not tolerate any sort of “performance”, that means: no singing, no dancing, no music, no videos, no props…this is POLICY DEBATE, not duo-interp. I’m not Eddy Warner or Bill Shanahan, so don’t waste my time with that garbage. I will seriously sign my ballot and leave the room. I’m all about T / CP / DA / Case. I’m not crazy about super-technical (semantic) topicality arguments (spec arguments particularly). Grammar arguments are nice. If the case is really abusive or blatantly not topical, go for T. Impact Analysis: This is probably the most important part of the debate. I weigh impacts by multiplying probability (x) magnitude (timeframe is more of a tie-breaker for competing impacts) so… if the affirmative wins an uncontested advantage that claims to save 1,000,000 people from contracting AIDS, and the negative wins a bad politics DA with nuclear war impact, I would prefer to vote for the Aff (and expect that the 2AR to say) that the 100% chance of saving a million people with a logical policy is a better option than rejecting this policy because of a .00001% chance that it causes a nuclear war. I LIKE SMART ARGUMENTS THAT HOLD A MODICUM OF TRUTH IN THE REAL WORLD. I would rather the negative go for a solid case turn/takeout that is straight up true, than to extend a pipedream disadvantage because the aff mishandled it or has no cards against it. I want debaters to explain to me why their arguments are true, the less you leave for me to interpret the less bias is involved. Theory: In round abuse would be nice, I think conditionality is bad but can be convinced that it is good. I like it when teams run counterplans unconditionally. If you run a conditional counterplan and have every intention of going for it in the 2NR, you’re a douche. I tend to favor arguments regarding education / fairness. I like when debaters are strategic, and they use cross-ex to strengthen their arguments in the debate. It’s always nice to see a team concede an opponents argument on 1 flow to strengthen their position on another flow etc… Cross-ex is binding. Try to be nice to each other, unless you really don’t like who you’re debating. You can poke fun at your opponents and their arguments, and be funny without being a dick about it (a fine line that I’m sure I’ve crossed too many times). I will rarely call for evidence, but will if necessary. A well explained analytic argument will beat a card without a warrant 100% of the time. I expect you to be loud and clear, if I cannot flow you, you will know immediately. I flow everything I can, not just tags. Try to slow down on theory / T if possible.