Stevens,+Ryan

Affiliation: Dallas Jesuit

Just to start this off, though I have very strong pre-dispositions for some args, rarely if it is debated out well, will I interject my own biases, though it is inevitable sometimes, I very much believe in viewing debate as a fun and educational game, a few meta things to start:

Topicality:
 * 1) One good piece of evidence beats ten bad pieces—I am not one to default uniqueness on a politics DA just b/c the neg has more, along these same lines, if the warrants aren’t brought out for me, rarely will I bring them out for you
 * 2) I am very much offense/defense minded when coming to most arguments, though I can be dissuaded on issues of theory and T, this means I like to hear impact calculus in terms of this; probability, magnitude, timeframe are key, but just because you say yours is the most probable isn’t persuasive, I need scenario building, and description of why this is true. Defensive args if developed well enough or holding on to the big T truth can bring risk so close to zero that the impact shouldn’t be weighed.

I enjoy good topicality debates, what this means is well developed stories of abuse, as well as, an overarching **__impact__** I can hang my hat on; fairness, topic specific education, real world education etc. Reasonability can be offense for me, and a reason to prefer the aff over an interp.

Theory:

Don’t particularly enjoy theory debates, considering most lack substance and go too fast, limited conditionality, PICs, consults (as long as they are relevant to the topic) are all ok, agent cps, as well as multiple conditional cps and int’l fiat are debatable, whereas utopian, object, and delay cps are something to stray away from, tho I will vote for the team doing the better debating.

Das/CPs

I enjoy good cp/da debates but i don't think you have to have a cp to win, I really like good in depth case and DA debates, as well. Not a lot to say which already hasn’t been mentioned earlier.

Kritiks:

Though I go for framework a lot nowadays I still enjoy good K debates, good meaning, well articulated link/alt/ and impacts, turns case arguments are especially good points for me. Framework can be a useful trick for negatives, but the aff should try to exploit it as much as possible through plan focus arguments, as well.

Besides that be as cordial and funny as possible, screaming matches aren’t enjoyable to watch.