Fitzmorris,+Kevin

**Read First** Because I know how pre-round prep works for a lot of people, I know that you're about to look for a) my K/Framework stance and then b) how I feel about your specific neg argument/type of argument. I strongly urge you to read all parts of this paradigm considering there are a bunch of small sections that are really important for teams in front of me. It's to your disadvantage to not read all of the following if I'm your judge. **Who I am** I'm a freshman at Northwestern University who debated at Isidore Newman (yes, I know Kevin Qi before you ask). Also add me to the email chain: **kevinfitzmorris2021@u.northwestern.edu** **Topicality** **CPs** **DAs** **Ks** **Theory** **Closing Remarks (ballot forming/speed/flowing)** I'll pretty much listen to whatever you have to say barring language or arguments that are entirely inappropriate (like racism good or bigoted language). I will be frustrated if you don't compare your arguments and make me wade through the debate. I will default to looking for the route of least resistance; that is, the ballot that means I intervene the least. This is usually best achieved by telling me how to look the round and why, why you win within that framework, why you win even if you don't win within that framework, why you win within your opponents' framework, etc. Many teams take this as a chance to be super repetitive. On the contrary, the more concise you are on each of these points, the better. This conciseness can be achieved with smart evidence and warrant comparison, considering the implication of arguments across flows and leveraging those implications in your favor, and word economy among other important fundamental tools to this event. Speed is arguments flowed per time unit, not words per minute. Please flow, it makes my flow better too.
 * One of my favorite debates if it's done well and both sides are organized. Unfortunately this is almost never done.
 * On reasonability, this is less of a preference and more objectively the only way this argument makes any sense, but at least when you're extending it contextualize it to the counter-interp.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Good counterplans will have a solvency advocate and be specific. I'd like to say just run whatever and let the theory play out and just win it, but historically I've been more neg on conditionality and pics good. I like to think it's because they're just better arguments, but there's probably some sort of inherent bias going on there, too.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Good args. I can be persuaded that there is no risk of a DA with some good impact calc and in-depth explanation of defensive arguments, but I find myself voting on this mostly when the negative has essentially underestimated the differences between the counterplan and plan throughout the debate. Usually if you're an aff in this position you're losing pretty badly anyway because you clearly have little to no offense on the counterplan
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">If you're the 2N that loves the one-off K I'm not the best for you. Not because I hate Ks, but because I have very little experience running them in that manner and therefore a lot of the nuance can be lost on me in very close debates (which isn't likely to go well for you). I think alts should do something and be defended and that links should be specific and include at least good story about the aff. (Strategic and in depth K debating is good?)
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I definitely prefer topical, plan-based affs. T vs. K affs is pretty good in front of me, but nothing is worse than when it's executed poorly. K affs that at least have a strong grounding in the topic have a much better time convincing me than the run Nietzsche as an aff for x year because why not aff.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Run it, if it's well-extended then I can be persuaded.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Only "reject the team" I can think of is Conditionality, but if you have a good argument for something else then I'll listen. (Conditionality is probably good though).
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Conditionality doesn't necessarily mean judge kick - if you want me to kick something for you, make it very clear and tell me why that should be a thing a judge does. I hate recreating debates in ways they didn't actually play out - you have to tell me what the world in which I kick it for you looks like.