Strickland,+Allyson

I'm a fairly simple critic, but will provide some guidelines so everyone (hopefully) knows what they're getting into when I'm sitting at the back of the room.

T/Procedurals

1. I have a middling threshold on T, but a significantly higher one on procedurals. If you're running a spec argument as a time suck, more power to you, but don't expect me to vote on it when you lose the substantive debate.

2. Don't assume that spouting debate jargon is an argument. Yes, I know what "a priori" means, but you still have to explain it.

3. I will not vote on RVIs (or should I say I won't vote for the affirmative on them...).

CPs

1. Run them. I'm open on all CP theory but, in general, I side with the negative. Negs should be allowed to run CPs of all statuses.

2. Explain what dispositional means.

3. CP can be textually or functionally competitive.

4. Perms are a test of competition and not severance.

5. Any kind of CP (PIC, Delay, Consult, etc.) is fair game.

Ks

1. I love Ks. That being said, I don't always understand them. I'm not deep on critical literature, so it's best to explain what you're talking about (Note: don't assume that I need cap bad explained to me or Fem-IR. I'm usually not critical, but I'm also not stupid). So, I'll vote on K. And, obviously, I'll also vote on turns to the K or even case outweighs. But, then, that assumes the F/W debate wasn't muddled which is almost never the case...

Other than that, I'll vote pretty straight up on DA and case debate. If I had a perfect debate round, it would either be an awesome K round, or a good ol' fashioned Case v. T and DA round. Gotta love the double bind...