Hanifan,+Tim

I competed for 4 years in High school policy, and Qualified for NDT 2 times. I currently compete for University of Nevada, Reno in Parliamentary debate. I understand what is going on in the debate. I would like to believe that I am tabbula rasa, and will listen to an argument even if I don't agree with it. I will evaluate the round however it is framed in that round. For specific arguments, see below

Topicality: Although I thought it was a great position to run, I now believe that it really isn't. I have a high threshold for Topicality, I will really only vote on T if they are clearly not topical or they approach the T wrong coming out of the 2AC. I default on competing interpretations, but will evaluate on reasonability if convinced but if they are topical, try and think of a different position to run.

Theory: It is in the same category as T, i loved to run it, but Theory debate cans really suck, generally I don't like them, but I will weigh them all the same. If however, there is some crafty trick that you run, I will be more likely to vote on it.

DA's: Anything is game. I was always a fan of kinda critical DA's and hate politics, but i get it, they link to everything and can have huge impacts. There are some theory positions that I think are good for the furthering of debate, but I want to see how you play the game, and I won't to see what you think is good for debate over my own preferences. I will, however, evaluate any argument in the round.

Counterplans and Perms: Run any type of counter plan and be prepared to answer any theory that is read. If the theory on the perm or the counterplan is drop/mishandled and is framed as a voting issue, I will weight it is such a way. On the perm: it is strictly a test of competition, not a new advocacy, don't run it as if it is. In regards to perm theory, run it and if it is dropped or mishandled, go for it.

Kritiks: I dislike the K a lot. With that in mind, I get it, there are run and win rounds. As long as you explain it to the point that I understand the story, and the other team doesn't treat the K properly, I will treat it as any other argument. I guarantee that I do not not the Lit base.

Framework: This debate is underutilized, it is where I won many debates on the framework page. I will request that in the framework, give me your new role of the ballot, or I will default policymaker. If it is mishandled or dropped, I will vote on it if I need to. Also, Framework does not apply to an argument, but the entirety of the round, and if you turn yourself in the round and your opponents point it out, I will vote on the framework.

Impact Calc.: I prefer probability and time frame over magnitude, but if no one decides to point out that nuke war won't happen, i will think that it will happen.

Speed: If you know how to spread, can spread clearly, and your opponents can keep up, go for it. All I ask is to slow down on the tags. With that in mind, I will not clear or slow you, I will simply stop flowing, it is your job to tell if you need to slow down or not.

Again, I will weigh any and all arguments, despite any predispositions, the round will be evaluated by the flow, i will not do work for any team, you must do the work for me, show me where the voting issues are. If, however, you are racist, sexist, or discriminatory language, your speaker points will suffer.

If i am your critic, i encourage you to treat the round like you normally would, because I am more interested in what you have to argue over what I would like to see in the round.

If you have any questions, ask me before the round and I will answer them.