Agha,+Samin

Topicality/Framework – I evaluate T in an offense/defense paradigm unless told otherwise. I like a good T debate, and clean technical debating on these issues. I can be persuaded that reasonability is a better standard than competing interpretations, but unless the definition is especially silly, I am probably slightly biased to CI. Both teams should be explaining what the topic looks like under their interpretation.

Theory – I tend to err neg on counterplan theory. I recognize the value of theory to win debates. You probably want to have a good comparison between the different interpretations of what the debate would look like in your framework. Be sure to tell me if the theory comes before T and why. I like robust debates about the legitimacy of arguments. If you want to win my ballot on theory, be sure to be making sets of meta level arguments while also contextualizing these in a way that tell me why the round has been negatively effected. I usually think that most theoretical objections are reasons to reject an argument, but can be persuaded otherwise. The exception to this is conditionality.

Kritiks- I am fairly familiar with this literature, but familiarity with the concepts does not mean that it isnt your job to persuade me. The weakest parts of most Ks are the explanation of the alternatives. To be in good shape you probably want it to solve some of the case, or a meta-level issue. Framework is almost always a reason you get to weigh the case. If you are especially good, it can become a reason to reject the alternative.

CPs – Enjoyable. I think they are some of the most strategic arguments negative teams can come up with. Impact calculus is important - tell be which lense is most important and why - speed > size etc etc. Specific solvency should probably be the standard for consult/conditions cp's - especially on a military topic with such high-quality literature. Your CP probably does not solve 100 percent of the case and the aff probably doesnt have a 100 percent solvency deficit - explain which internal links are most important and why the CP solves those best - why does the net benefit outweigh the remaining risk of a solvency def? My default for the CP is that that is the 2NR advocacy - I WILL NOT default to the status quo unless the negative tells me to and gives reasons why that's ok.

Non-traditional affirmatives – While I don’t have much personal experience with them I believe they can be very strategic for teams that debate them well. You can read whatever type of aff you want whether it only have a heg advantage or it criticizes the topic without a plan text, I enjoy both of these debates equally.

Be clear, agressive and smart and you will be rewarded. Have FUN. If you have any other questions feel free to ask me.