Manns,+Andrew

I'm fairly typical in my basic tastes. Explain warrants, speak clearly, etc. I try to be as non-interventionist as possible. A part of that which I suppose is less typical is that I try to NEVER read evidence. I prefer to evaluate the debate based upon the arguments made by the debaters, evidence is a secondary concern. That doesn't mean you can make claims without evidence. What it does mean is that after reading evidence you should be evaluating it and explaining warrants to me rather then reading more evidence, and using what you have from your evidence to answer your opponent's arguments. Now the specifics-

Disadvantages: I enjoy good disad debates. I don't like bad disads (though I'm more then happy to listen to them and vote on them if they're not handled well). And even though I don't like bad disads, I do find politics debates, with all their spin, to be very entertaining when done well.

Counterplans: I love clever counterplans that suck up the aff. PICs are great (though I'll vote on theory if its well explained). Not a huge fan of Consult, but I'll vote on it.

Critiques: I have spent more time with critiques then with any other argument in debate. I enjoy the literature greatly and I'm probably at least familiar with any of the authors used in debate. All this being said, I am not a fan of a poorly explained critique that's run simply for the sake of appealing to me. SO if you're going to run a critique, do it well.

Performance: I am more then happy to evaluate performance in rounds. I'm familiar with most of the "projects" on the high school and college circuit. That being said, I do want an explanation of why your performance is good or important. Don't just perform and expect me to vote on it, I need arguments.

Topicality and Theory: I'm a big fan of topicality. I tend to prefer competing interpretations over reasonability. Of the standards I find limits to be the most compelling. With theory, I tend to think conditionality is good, but that won't stop me from voting on it. I like theory debates with real clash, not just both sides reading their blocks.