Moxley,+Christopher


 * Chris Moxley**
 * Alpharetta High School Class of 2014**

__**Quick Overview:**__ 1. There isn't really much I won't listen to. That being said, there are arguments I WILL NOT vote for these include: - Racism Good - Malthus - Cancer Good - Any other argument that is morally unacceptable 2. There can be zero risk of a DA. There is not "always a risk". That's stupid. 3. Tech>Truth. A dropped argument is a true argument. That doesn't mean a one line extension is sufficient. 4. I like jokes. I don't like bad jokes though. 5. Speed is not a substitute for clarity. 6. Debate is fun. Have fun and be nice.

__Prep time__ - prep stops when the flash drive leaves the computer. If you or your partner is continuing to prep when you have stopped prep time, you will lose .5 points at least. Depends how egregious it is/how my mood is. //And I am moody. Keep that in mind.//
 * __Longer stuff__**

__Topicality__ - I like T debates. I dislike stupid T violations. I think the most important part of the T debate is impacting your standards, explain why education/fairness comes first or why you access a better internal link to these arguments, fairness isn't an impact in itself, explain why fairness is important.

__Disads__ - I would prefer this to any other kind of debate. I think the link probably controls direction of the uniqueness but it can be the other way around as well. I like politics. I'm also down for politics theory.

__Counterplans__ - I like them. I //really// like them if they are well thought out and strategic. A counterplan should probably be functionally and textually competitive. If a CP is artificially competitive(competes of should, resolved etc.) I definitely lean aff on theory. You need to explain why I should kick the CP, saying "you can kick it if you don't like it" is not sufficient. I **//__will not__//** kick it without explanation.

__Kritiks__ - I'm not that well-versed in critical literature that is way out there but i'm familiar with your generic Ks. You should be specific in the explain of the link to the K.

__K Affs__ - You should probably defend something. I **__heavily, like really heavily,__** lean neg on framework when the aff does not defend a plan. I think if you're going for framework, both sides need to explain what debate looks like and how that accesses the best forms of education/debate practice.

__Theory__ - Multiple perms bad and cheap-shot theory arguments are //generally// not a reason to reject the team, if you want to go for an argument, then you have to explain why it's a reason to reject the team. Limited conditionality is good, meaning that 1 is fine, 2 is good, and 3 or more is not cool. 50 state fiat, consult theory, process cps theory, conditions, etc. can be either, if you impact it as a reason to reject the team, then i'm rejecting the team.