Crane,+Riley

Riley Crane Wichita State University Hutchinson High School

Overview: Do what you do. I defer to an offense/defense paradigm unless stated otherwise. There is such a thing as zero risk. An argument at the very least requires a claim and a warrant. Conceded arguments are true, unless it conflicts with a meta-level framing issue. I think spin is more important than evidence, and I try not to make a debate come down to me reading a stack of cards to make a decision. That being said if evidence is fire, let me know that I need to read it. Feel free to ask specific question regarding my paradigm:

T: I default to competing-interpretations. Interpretations should provide clear distinctions, and be relevant literature to the topic.

Case: Big case debates are under-utilized, and I will easily vote neg on presumption. Big impact turn debates are my favorite, don't shy away from it. If the 2NC is all case, you'll probably get higher speaker points.

DA: Run em. Links should be unique, but uniqueness does not necessarily strengthen the link argument.

CP's: Condo is generally acceptable but I can be persuaded otherwise. I think what justifies as "competition" and "opportunity cost" is up for debate.

K: Neg should get criticisms, aff should be able to weigh the 1AC. This does not exclude providing me ways to frame certain impact calculus. Good literature is essential, but smart framing and analysis beats a card war. Role of the ballot claims are strategic, but don't make them self-serving. "The role of the ballot is to vote for my criticism" type claims aren't too compelling to me.