Holohan,+Mikey

I’m a firm believer that debate should be in the hands of the debaters as much as it can. Given the differential nature of institutional capacity to produce evidence, I am much more likely to vote for fantastic explanation of awful evidence than awful explanation of fantastic evidence. I believe that an argument consists of a CLAIM and a warrant but a well-delivered argument consists of a claim, warrant, AND impact. Debaters that can see the forest through the trees will not only have a greater chance at winning but get much better speaks. I believe evidence comparison is extremely extremely important but it needs to be done by the debaters and not by me after the round. Each of these arguments needs to be explained in the context of the debate (this is true for all arguments). That being said, I am comfortable with all kinds of arguments and am a huge fan of the K. I've debated both the K and more traditional policy arguments. I'm pretty affluent in several authors, but this does not mean you pull out some random K you have never read before in front of me. If that happens your speaker points will clearly reflect my disdain for running something you don't understand and are clearly uncomfortable defending. Overall, I just want you to do you. Run what you are most comfortable with. Lastly, I have a VERY HIGH threshold for theory and the only violation I feel is legit is CONDO/perfcon. I am not a fan of teams running 10 different theory violations.