Bach,+Ryan

I'm a fourth year college policy debater for the University of Rochester. I've debated everything from straight-up policy to non-traditional performance strats, so I'm fine with whatever you want to run.

A few quick notes on specific arguments:

Speed/Clarity: I'm fine with fast debate, but slow down a bit for dense theory blocks and the like. If an argument doesn't make it on my flow, I obviously can't evaluate it. I'll give you one verbal warning if you're unclear. If I still can't flow you, it's up to you to notice this and slow down.

T: I think Affs should have something to do with the Resolution, although I'll vote for "Rez bad" Affs if they can defend being non-resolutional. Most pseudo-topical K affs would be much better off explaining an alternative view of what it means to affirm the resolution than just saying that T is bad. I won't vote on T unless the Neg tells me why I should. Competitive Equity and Education are probably the most compelling voters to me, but I'll vote on just about any voter except Jurisdiction (don't say Jurisdiction - just don't).

CP/Disads: I like them, especially when they are deployed strategically. I've been debating/judging the college topic all season, so don't expect me to know the nuances of your scenario, but explain it well and I'll vote on it. I'm not offence/defence; I think terminal defence is sometimes good enough, particularly if the argument is simply missing a key internal link. Calling bad evidence into question is important. If you don't challenge it, I'll assume it says whatever they claim it does. Extremely tiny risks of implausible scenarios fall under my presumption threshold.

Ks: I like them, especially when they are deployed strategically. Negs should explain how the K turns and/or solves the case. Affs should limit what the Neg gets away with solving with the alt and read the Neg's cards to make smart analytics about how the Aff's arguments interact with the K.

Framework: I think it can be very useful in some cases and obnoxious in others. Frameworks that say certain types of arguments should be disallowed are usually a lot less compelling than frameworks that tell me how I can compare and evaluate all competing strategies. I would rather have a way to choose your advocacy as superior to theirs than be stuck with yours because theirs is cheating.

Theory: None of my defaults are strong enough to matter. I default to reject the argument, not the team, so tell me why I should vote on theory if you want me to. Competitive equity is usually more convincing language than fairness. My threshold is pretty high for cheap shots and blippy independent voters. That said, sometimes theory is the best option and I will reward bold and intelligent strategic decisions to go "all in" on a theory argument when appropriate. That said, you should at least be able to spin your argument as a substantial theoretical position rather than a blippy cheap shot if you expect a clean win and decent speaks.

Performance: If you debate in a non-line-by-line fashion, give me a good explanation of how your argument functions in the round and why I should vote for it.

If you have other specific questions, just ask.