Hamraie,+James

All arguments are acceptable. The more specific the debate is, the more points you will probably get.

Points: You can beef them up by making a lasting impression and sounding good in cross-x. Do not be mean or overall agressive or loud. However, smart agression and compelling rationale is preferred. 28 is average. 28.5 is a pretty good debater. 29 is for someone amazing. and 29.5 extremely rare.

__**Stye:**__ I prefer not to read any evidence and will typically only do so when teams lacks explanations or don't compare their evidence. Typically argument extensions have to be warranted. If an argument is made in a few seconds especially in a rebuttal I will rarely call for the evidence. I will not evaluate 2AR arguments that appear new or we'rent in the 1AR, UNLESS they are a response to 2NR argument that wasnt in the block. In terms of highlighting, I evaluate evidence which is highlighted strategically and is made of sentence fragments on the same level of a piece of evidence that highlights the same sentence. However, warranted evidence always takes precendence over rhetorically powerful evidence. I am compelled to prefer evidence for a variety of reasons from author quals to date, etc but unless told to do so will just evaluate warrants when reading a card is necesary. Unless both cards are equally warranted and one is newer, in which case I will typically prefer that depending on whether the time-frame is large and I think it makes a differnece.

__**Theory/Topicality:**__ I tend to view both of these in an offense/defense framework. I can be compelled to vote on both, however, especially if you're going for theory, you must answer the other teams arguments even if they are silly defensive ones and compare the impact to your standards against theirs. I prefer not to evaluate these debates but I feel it teams can win these, especially topically. However, in order to do so standard comparison is necesary, without making substantial argumentation in this regard, I will probably err with the defending team on topicality and theory.

Specifically for theory, i feel that some CP's, specifically consult CP's and process CP's are less theoretically legimiate. I think dispositional CP's are pretty legimiate and will rarely vote on Dispo bad, but can be persuaded on condo/multiple conditional worlds, if there are clear abuse stories, standard comparisons, and no dropped defensive arguments that take out your standard offense. PICS with a solvency advocate which advocates the CP, not just the net benefit and establishes clear functional competition are preferred. I am less geared to vote on theory vs. these CP's as well as textually competitive CP's. I can be persuaded to vote against Consult and process CP's unless they have a very specific solvency advocate to the exact plan.

International CP's are probably legitimate, but I could potentially vote on it if a strong ground and education claim is advanced. Same goes for 50 State fiat.

Unless you have an amazing T violation and you sound super technical, you will probably get less points than if you go for a substantive strat. Same goes for theory.


 * __Kiritik__**- I am fine with kritiks. I usually evalaute them them like DA's with an alternative that generates uniqueness like a CP. This is just how I default in evalauting them, however, if a strong counter-framework or role of the ballot is advanced and clearly won, then I have no problem voting in a different way. I believe taht criticisms of somethign the aff does in the realm of policy simulation, such as Colonialism some versions, of biopower etc (criticizing the plans function). What this means is if you say that policy simulation shouldnt be something evaluated through my ballot, then if you are banking on links based on something the plan does, then you lose your links and the perm probably solves. Criticisms that can win a legimate non-policy simulation framework where the effects of policy simulation should not be evalauted are K's of representations, methodology, psychoanalysis, etc. I also think that your evidence should support this type of non-fiat link claim. Not enoguh to just assert it.

Dis-ads. Great.

Counterplans. Great.

Case. Great. However dont make it too muddled. Especially if you are impact turning. If so i prefer good amounts of impact calculus just like on a DA.