Canniff,+Brandon

Dexter High school '11 University of Michigan '15

A few of my favorite arguments: politics, the k, the limits DA, impact turning. That being said, I down for anything. The ballet tells me to vote for whoever does the better debating. What you think that means is up to you, and I will try to be as objective as possible.

If you really need specifics, here are some quick thoughts.

T: A fast, technical T debate is great to watch. That being said, I am prone to vote for a 2a who can well defend reasonability if it is a core aff.

K: If you are reading an obscure K be ready to explain it well in the 2nr and have a compelling reason why the case doesn't outweigh. This could mean reps come first or that the aff is a lie, up to you. The more specific the better, that means taking the time in the block to tug out specific links to the aff and turns case args.

Theory: I'm a blank slate. Maybe 1 condo world is bad maybe 5 are good. It's up to the debaters to tell me what is theoretically legitimate, just be ready to explain and impact whatever it is. I default to reject the argument on every issue except condo.

CPs: I am willing to vote down wonky CPs on theory, so be ready to defend your nonsense. I am also willing to vote on CP links to the net benefit if the aff team explains it as a reason the CP is no longer a coherent policy option and is sufficient to warrant an aff ballet. If this discussion doens't happen though, I will default to offense/defense and weigh the solvency deficit vs the net benefit.

DA: I believe in zero risk. This goes for the case and the DA. If either team invests the time and explains their defense well I'm fine with pulling the trigger on presumption or no risk of the DA.

Politics: politics DAs are probably good, that being said, if you are great at going for intrinsicness in the 2ar, by all means, don't let me stop you. All of the politics DAs are pretty bad right now though so I'll give higher speaks to any 2ar that goes for compartmentalization or pc not key and explain it in the context of the DA.

Performance: I've judged and debated these types of teams enough to listen and vote for it, but I do lean towards FW and policymaking good. Make sure to explain why racism/structural violence/whatever matters more than fiat/having a plan/policymaking well, if you do that though I'm more than comfortable voting for you.