Burke,+Sara

__Fundamental Theoretical Stuff__
 * No argument is wrong before it is answered. A dropped argument is a true argument.
 * New arguments in the 1AR or later do not normally affect the decision, but I do write them down.
 * My default behavior is to ignore new rebuttal arguments.
 * A team could conceivably justify a new argument in the 1AR or the 2NR, because the other team has a chance to refute the justification.
 * I will always ignore new 2AR arguments unless a justification has been made and won in advance.
 * I might ask to read evidence from the round.
 * Requesting that I read a card does not guarantee that I will read it, but it increases the likelihood. Such requests must happen during the round.
 * I will read a card if there is a dispute over what it says.
 * I will read cards on a particular issue if I cannot otherwise settle that issue.
 * I will look for ways to avoid reading evidence.
 * The speech time limits are absolute.
 * Everything except the time limits is fair game for argument, including how I should evaluate the round. Please debate the framework if it is relevant.
 * If teams fail to debate various aspects of how I should decide, I will resort to defaults:
 * The team whose stance is expected to yield the best material outcome wins.
 * The “best material outcome” is determined by the presence of offense.
 * Absolute defense is possible but unlikely.
 * A “stance” does not necessarily require a governmental policy, but I tend to assume in the absence of argument that individuals are much less powerful than the government.
 * If all outcomes are absolutely equal, I will vote for the status quo.
 * All outcomes are almost never absolutely equal.
 * I will vote for the lesser of two evils.
 * If neither team is advocating the status quo and all expected outcomes are absolutely equal, I will vote affirmative.
 * The voter on theory or topicality is an argument about how I should decide the round.
 * By default, given a voter, theoretical arguments precede other forms of evaluation. This framework is debatable, but I favor it.
 * Given a voter and the absence of additional framework arguments, my default paradigm for theoretical arguments is similar to my default elsewhere:
 * The team whose stance is expected to yield the best material outcome wins the theory sub-debate.
 * The “best material outcome” is determined by the presence of offense.
 * If all outcomes are absolutely equal, I will ignore the theoretical objection.
 * Debaters should note that the above description is different from the way many judges look at theory. I have no default “threshold”: if the team raising the objection wins the voter, //any// amount of offense justifies a ballot.

__Argument Preferences__
 * I try not to let my personal preferences determine the outcome of the round. If you say things which are offensive, I will not automatically vote against you, but I might reduce your speaker points.
 * You should not assume that I already know what your K authors say. Clear explanations are useful.
 * I like good topicality and theory debates.
 * I like debates about reasonable ethical impacts. Please discuss the relative merits of giving ethical claims different levels of priority.
 * I’m not a fan of ASPEC, plan vagueness, nihilistic Ks, objectivism, or Malthus. Unfortunately, I have voted on each of these at one time or another.
 * There are some arguments which I dislike enough to provide specific advice for answering them in front of me:
 * Constitutional convention counterplans. Argue that it is fiat abuse: too many actors; too many steps; fiat denies best aff answer which should be implausibility; ratification is object fiat.
 * Consultation counterplans. Perm: do both. The time frame of plan was not specified strictly enough to conflict with the time frame of the perm.
 * Offsets counterplans. Perm. Only plan text has burden of topicality.
 * State counterplans which involve //simultaneous// and //cooperative// action of all fifty states, and counterplans which use the Supreme Court to devolve authority to the states and then fiat state action. Fiat abuse: too many actors; fiat denies best aff answer which should be implausibility; lit doesn’t assume simultaneity. For “Lopez,” state action is object fiat.
 * The framework argument that "fiat is an illusion." The K alt is also purely hypothetical.