Susko,+Peter

I am finishing my sophomore year at the University of Mary Washington where I am currently debating. Prior to that I debated for Cathedral Prep for four years. I have done research on the topic but I have not judged a round this year. With that being said here are my opinions on particular arguments

I believe that the debate should be centered on the hypothetical world where the USFG takes a topical action on the topic. If this isn’t your style of debate, you probably don’t want me in the back of the room.

Topicality – I do not have a preference when it comes to competing interpretations vs. reasonability. However, if the aff doesn’t counter define in the 2AC or tell me why that doesn’t matter, the aff will be fighting an uphill battle.

Counterplan – Counterplans are tight. Conditionality is good. Probably should have a solvency advocate with your Counterplan but not a deal breaker. Important thing to understand about me in the back of the room, in a world where the 2nr goes for a Counterplan, I will not evaluate the status quo as well unless told to by the negative.

Disadvantages – Big fan of disads, love hearing a good politics debate. Turns the case and outweighs the case arguments are always a plus.

Criticisms – I do not go for criticisms often as a debater and are not familiar with them. I do not read this literature base, which means I am not familiar with the particular jargon your criticism might entail. Also I tend to view that most criticisms are linear disads with utopian counterplans, which means if this isn’t how you view debate I’m probably not the best judge for you. When it comes to framework, getting to the middle of the road is a good idea and persuasive.