Ryan,+Adam

**Background**
I did 4 years of debate at Blue Springs South high school. In my experience as the 2A-1N I was usually constrained to going for policymaker type arguments because of the unfortunate lay circuit I was in. However, don’t be fooled into thinking you need to slow stuff down. I prefer fast debate.

**Overview**

 * 1) I am tabula rasa, but I will default to an offense-defense paradigm. I think this is applicable to all arguments whether it be Disads, K’s, or theory. But if you want to convince me of something else (i.e. Hypo testing, whole res, even……. Stock) I will listen. But dear god, please no, not stock.
 * 2) Please do not hesitate to run whatever you are most comfortable with and confident on. No matter my personal preferences, I think you will always be better off going for what you are best at going for. I will evaluate any argument that you run as objectively as I possibly can.
 * 3) I think debate is a game. I am open to engage with and vote on whatever model of debate is best justified in the round. With that being said, however, I have preconceived notions as to what that game looks like given my experience, so if you’re wanting to spice things up, a good explanation never hurts.
 * 4) In constructive speeches, all I care about hearing is tag lines, author names, and dates. All I ask is that you signpost with subpoints or the word “next” or “also” when moving to a new argument. I’ll probably ask for speech docs anyways so don’t worry about it too much. (that’s another thing, SHARE YOUR EVIDENCE. If you don’t, you’re boosie and it will be reflected in speaker points. Also, I would not be opposed to hearing disclosure theory *wink wink*.)
 * 5) In rebuttals, please kick things. I hate blippy extensions spreading yourself thin. I want in depth analysis on what you really want to go for. I need impact calculus and framing arguments in order to evaluate what the neg v the aff world looks like.
 * 6) Nothing is off limits. I do not care if you cuss or sit or even sleep during the round. I will evaluate nothing (in terms of the decision, speaker points are a different story) besides what is on my flow.
 * 7) Lastly, I couldn’t care less about a “community bias.” Run whatever you want, however unpopular it is.

**Topicality**
Blessed. Go for T. I love it. My threshold for voting on T is established by the arguments in the round. If the aff makes good defensive arguments and argues reasonability well than my threshold will be high. If they don't it will be very low. If reasonability/competing interps is not addressed, I default competing interpretations primarily because it functions more effectively on the offense-defense paradigm. People don’t like T RVI’s, but I don’t mind them. Do what you got to do to put some offense on the flow.

**Theory**
YES YES YES! I am down to hear some theory! Bring the heat! I want to make debate the best activity that it can be. If you impact out your interpretation, then hell yeah I’ll vote for it. I am good with A-Z spec. I LOVE disclosure theory if they violate. Condo good/bad is a classic. No neg fiat has a chance. Throw all of it at me. Let’s #ChangeTheGame Cross apply the analysis on competing interps v reasonability from the T section Cross apply RVI analysis from the T section

**Disadvantages**
Yuh, but please run it right. I you win a coherent link story, then I will accept it. But once you get to the impact level, you NEED to do impact calculus. If I am not explicitly told that the DA turns or outweighs the case then it is worthless to me. Don’t be afraid to use a “we meet” argument from the T flow to link them into the DA. That’s an automatic speaker point bump. #TacticalTForTheWin

**Counterplans**
Wonderful strategy, sir/ma’am Normal ish, word pics, advantage CP’s, actor cp's, and process cp's. I like them all. Counterplans are a god send to the negative. Use them at your will, but be careful your strat is not too abusive or else the 2AC could hit you with some theory.

**Kritiks**
Yes. Burn it down. I rarely got to go for the K as a debater, but I am familiar with some poststructuralist theory and some identity politics literature. All I ask is that you spend some time explaining the thesis of the K. Its harder for me to vote for what I don’t understand. Additionally, I ask that you flesh out the Framework flow on the K especially if the Aff assumes a policymaker paradigm. This allows me to more accurately compare the alternative to the aff.

**K aff**
I know this is an area of controversy, so i'm including it on here. I don't care what the heck you say in your 1ac as long as you give me a framework for evaluating the content presented, and you defend your performance.