Paqueo,+Niccolo

__**3. Theory**__ - Default is reject the argument not the team. Though, depending on how the counterplan functions from its characteristics (Agent, Object, Process = all very suspect), I will never shy from voting the other way. Theory is very interesting to me and should not be just some non-interactive block you read in 10 seconds.
 * --- Short Version ---**
 * 1. __Communicate Claims, Warrants, Impacts__** - Debate is a smart, communicative activity. Warrants in evidence are highlighted down so much that, more and more, evidence reading that is boiling down to just a series of 2-4 word phrases that make incidentally result in a claim. I sometime find it disconcerting for teams to constantly “take the pepsi challenge” or “prefer our evidence” on these terrible pieces of evidence. Spend time to present meaningful interactions drawing upon warrants in your evidence. I tend to lean on not reading evidence unless it really dawns on me that the debate is that good where competition demands me to do so. Evidence is not a crutch for you. I prefer smart analytical offense to an overabundance of one-line, zero-warrant cards.
 * 1a. __Competition Scenarios__** - I like these. Explanations are good.
 * 1b. __Dropped Arguments are not 100%__ -** It is YOUR JOB to make outweighing claims and hit on everything throughout your speech, including dropped arguments. A dropped argument can still be calculated, outweighed and framed-out ESPECIALLY if you don't attempt to address it for yourself.
 * 2. __Organization__** - I flow line-by-line. Its just a way for me to conveniently take notes. I prefer if you number arguments, use subpoints and such. Embedded Clash is fine as long as you are signposting.
 * 3. __CX__** - Probably your best way to win ethos with me and speaker points. Also I don't mind hostile CX. What I do mind is name-calling and labelling. Don't make me uncomfortable watching your cross-ex. I will probably be laughing in the back or giving you faces if I think your arguments are absurd. There is a fine line between being an aggressive and funny debater and being a nuisance. Err on the side of the former.
 * 3a. __Conditionality__ -** The status quo always being an option is fine, but if you are advocating it in the 2NR minus a competition scenario for the status quo, I will find it very hard to vote for you.
 * 3b. __Specification debates__** - Not keen on these debates. Additionally, if your "counter-interpretation" is that "the" requires the aff to specify, I will be less inclined to "pull the trigger."
 * 3c.** **__Counter-interpretations__** - Other than Topicality debates where this is actually, spending your time defending what you do/justify/don't do/don't justify will benefit you more than extending some arbitrary line.
 * 4. __Kritiks__** - Fine with them: I find Rasch and Nietzche particularly interesting. For me the framing of your kritik is especially important, as important if not more to the question of alternative solvency claims. Never assume that I know the nuances of your kritik. Usage of “big, philosophical, amorphous” words is not a substitute for debate. I actually find them to be the number one impediment to flowing.
 * 5. __Framework__** - I will always default to position myself as a critic of United States Federal Government action. You may explicitly change this if you provide me with a way to evaluate the debate. Think about it this way: I am an educator passing out a rubric with benchmarks for evaluation. You don’t like this so you make your own. I will consider changing my “rubric” if you provide me with the benchmarks to do so.
 * 6. __Dispo, Condo, Thumper, Squo__**...What do these all have in common besides being a debate argument? They are unacceptable abberations in debate vocabulary which I particularly don't like. If you use them, you could expect your speaks to reflect my dismay.

**--- Longer Version ---** At a minimum the affirmative must defend a topical plan based within the text of the resolution. Arguments are statements consisting of both a claim and a warrant. A claim is not an argument when it doesn’t have a warrant. IMPACT your arguments. You should always be asking yourself the question "Why is this important?" at every moment in the debate. Take them to the logical conclusion. Shadow extensions don't fly with me, don't do them. You will almost never win anything 100% with me. I do not evaluate a dropped argument as 100% true but rather give a substantial weight to it my decision calculus. The reason is that the impact can still be mitigated through impact comparison and somehow interacts with another argument. Impact comparison, outweighing claims or rather just comparative claims reduces this risk. Additionally, I believe that depth is the best way to spread someone. Running eight disadvantages, critiques and counterplans, sparsely going for arguments, and going for all 8 eight the block without developing those arguments will tell me that you have no coherent strategy at all. Spend the time developing arguments on multiple levels. This is particularly true in theory debates and topicality debates. Speed is not measured by words per minute but rather clear arguments per minute. Do not sacrifice clarity for speed. It would be wise for you to look up at me from time to time to read my facial expressions. Readers beat talkers. Qualification debates need to happen more especially regarding impact authors, Jerome Corsi definitely comes to mind. Saying the author is a hack and ate babies is an ad hom and thus I highly suggest that you avoid them. Rather think about how the author's credentials or history has affected the objectiveness of his claims. Common sense goes along way. Analytics are nice. Policy Debate, though heavily research based, was founded on smart analytics. Don't be hesitant to go for analytical answers but choose wisely which ones need evidentiary support and which ones don't. For example - Wipeout should and can be beaten on analytics. New arguments in the rebuttals – it is your job to call them out on it. It is certainly impossible to clearly identify how new an argument is giving the nature of debate is to respond to arguments. However, I will hold the 2ar to a pretty strict standards of what constitutes a new argument. Offense and Defense probably the best way to explain how i think.
 * ---A. Stylistic issues---**

Topicality is a voting issue. I was a T debater as a 2N so I love good, specific, coherent violations. Get out of the standards-in-a-vaccum debate but explain to me a vision of debate that would be better to have thought your interpretation of the resolution. A good overview of T, explanations of why the Aff doesn’t meet and why their interpretation is bad, explanations of what kind of cases the aff’s interpretation justifies and the type of arguments you lose and why those arguments are necessary for the topic go along way in convincing me. Reasonability as a paradigm does not make sense to the extent that it is difficult to delineate the line between what is reasonable and what is not. Though I default competing interpretations, it is not, however, an uphill battle. Defend why reasonability is good, why their interpretation doesn’t allow a specific set of cases, why its bad and why competing interpretations are bad. Specification arguments are NOT convincing because these arguments usually lack the components required to make it a good argument (a definition, reasons why it is the Affirmative’s burden to specify). It is the negative’s burden to prove that the resolution calls for the aff to specify within the resolution. Cross-ex checks is a devastating argument against such things DO NOT DO THIS INFRONT OF ME: CI – Only our case is topical, T is a Reverse Voting Issue. These two unwarranted arguments don't really have to be responded to.
 * ---B. Topicality---**

At the end of the debate, I will vote for who did the better debating. In the more "traditional" policy debates, the decision is whether or not "X" action should be undertaken by the United States Federal Government. If you wish to change the way my ballot operates over a different competing paradigm from which I am supposed to operate from. However, just because you win your framework or that your alternative, in no way does it give uniqueness to your links. Rather I accept your arguments as existant in the world. Whether or not they are true, bad, problematic is a separate question that needs to be debate. I do appreciate framework debates but I prefer if teams engaged Ks instead of trying to say that they cheat. I am also sympathetic to the argument that the affirmative should at least be able to use 1ac impacts against your kritik within most frameworks. More and more "performance" teams are permuting frameworks. If you do so, you better have a good idea of how that new third framework operates affects competition scenarios.
 * ---C. Framework---**

If you control the frame of the debate, your chances of winning is much higher. I love teams who impact turn K arguments and actually defend their epistemologies and why they are right. Always assume that I have not read your author. Slow down at telling me your thesis and emphasize important concepts you want me to note. I do not mind them when they are fully developed and coherent. Competition Scenarios between the Aff, the Permutation(s) and Alternatives are necessary for clear decisions on both times. Link Blocks are particularly important for me on this question. Impact turn debates with critiques are always fun to hear and watch. Dehumanization good probably crass and the evidence is probably terrible but impact turns like West is Best, Hegemony Good and Terrorists do exists are good in my book. Counter-permutations - Innovative. Some judges don't like them but if you know how it works and are confident, I won’t stop it. However I will give the 1AR a huge amount of leniency when answering this. And what exactly is the Zero Point of the Holocaust? Be more organic with your impact scenarios and thinking. I know what that means but when I have that on my flow with no impact comparison against a nuclear terrorist attack in the short term usually means that I would rather kill the terrorist.
 * ---D. Kritiks---**

My theory threshold extends far behind "oh snap you dropped it" and definitely passed the blippy fast debates. If you are going to go for theory, Make it about the vision of debate. Offense/Defense oriented theory debates are welcomed. As for my decision making paradigm, I come from the Wallace/Strait school of thought. That should especially guide you on how I think about Agent counterplans in general. Consult Counterplans, Process Counterplans, Word Plan Inclusive Counterplans Alternate Actor/Agent Counterplans, Multi-Actor Fiat and Object fiat counterplans are all suspect to me. Counterplans should be both textually and functionally competitive. Conditionality – I am actually fine with this. To win that it is good, you probably have to win that it is logical. Its logical for a counterplan to be conditional as the status quo should be an option. It is not logical for someone to place benchmarks for kicking, those goalposts are always arbitrary and self-serving. This is probably why counter-interpretations on the theory debate are so dumb: If you are aff, just win that any situation that is better than the current one is preferable. If you are neg, just defend why conditionality is necessary. Consult CPs and other Process CPs – I have yet to see a legit consult counterplan that actually has 1. A true solvency advocate referring to the plan 2. Say yes evidence specific to the plan. Consult CPs do not disprove whether or not the plan should be enacted rather they serve as uniqueness for the net benefit’s link is generated at the process/implementation level. The aff should use the status quo as a defense for the implementation of the plan i.e. in the world of the status quo the plan would be enacted immediately. Any CP that alters the process of how the status quo function is subject to permutation, etc. Unless otherwise stated, theory is a reason to reject the argument and not the team. You need to impact your voting issues. Saying Voting issue for fairness and jurisdiction gives not give me any reason why fairness and jurisdiction is important and how your interpretation of theory holds any weight under those paradigms. The more and more I think about it, very abusive counterplans can be voting issues separate from the conditional nature of the counterplan. That is to say theoretical objections to the type of counterplan (Agent, Process, Consult, Conditions, etc.) can be deployed in and of themselves without having to first isolate the the nature of the counterplan (conditional, etc.). However in doing so, I believe you lose a lot of potential offense. It seems that in my mind that logic would dictate that, if the counterplan was indeed a test of the plan, that the conditions on when it could be kicked or when the status quo would be the better option would be determined upon certain mechanics of the counterplan failing. If this were the case, there would be no logical reason for the status of the counterplan to dictate the functionality of the counterplan. "Theory Magnifiers" - I am seeing more and more teams go for these "X nature of the counterplan magnifies the abuse of Y type of counterplan." To this I say: I probably am not going to evaluate passed a "gut check" if it doesn't have a warrant. Explain how it "magnifies" the abuse.
 * ---E. Counterplans and Theory---**

Not a particular fan of Politics probably because all the link stories are terrible and uniqueness evidence is really not that good. Though I will say do not let this deter you, If you are a great politics debater go for it. Uniqueness vs Link - I probably think this is proportional. Whether or not I believe whoever wins the uniqueness controls the direction of the link question is up for debate.
 * ---F. Disads---**