Taylor,+Daniel

Resume-ish things: I debated for 5 years at Westminster, mostly on the national circuit. I will be debating at Harvard this upcoming year.

Most of these are just defaults that I can be argued out of, though chances are I'm defaulting to them because I find them logical, so if the other team argues back you may be fighting an uphill battle, though of course the other team has to actually win the line by line etc.

1) Default to competing interpretations on T unless otherwise argued. If you read reasonability, please give a reason why the aff interpretation is reasonable.

2) There is such thing as essentially 0 risk. If the risk of the DA/Advantage is indistinguishable from statistical background noise, there isn't a "super small" risk of a link. There's no link.

3) Perms don't need net benefits if they solve all negative offense. Saying "there's a super small risk of a link for no clear reason" is no different than saying "there's a super small risk of a solvency deficit for no clear reason."

4) K's are fine. And honestly "cheating" on framework is only strategic, I encourage you to do it. That said, affirmatives should stop racing for the middle so much, if you think you can win a policy framework means no alt/no link/no whatever then go for it.

5) I'm probably not the best judge for you if you don't defend a plan. Not because I won't listen, but rather because I find framework arguments about the resolution being a stasis point persuasive.

6) I'll yell clear. I should be able to understand the text of cards. Continual refusal to listen will result in me either not flowing, docking speaker points, or both.

7) List of theory arguments with my self-perceived biases - Condo: Neg Dispo: Neg Pics Bad: Neg Consult/Conditions: Aff Agent Cp's: Neg (though aff on competition if the plan said USFG) International Fiat: Aff 50 State Fiat: Aff Process-y PICs out of things not in the plan: Aff Most other stupid things: Aff Intrinsicness: Aff. Though no one goes for it well.

On a lot of these I find logic based arguments a lot more persuasive than fairness or education claims, mainly because logic precedes the other two, otherwise we might as well just say the aff always gets prolif bad as offense to make things more fair (hint, you should use that analogy).

8) Saying something is a voter doesn't make it a voter. Saying "You could do the plan and pass LOST" isn't an intrinsicness argument. Saying "Perm do both shields the link" isn't a shields the link argument. If you don't have a warrant for your claims I won't care if the other team drops them. This one's probably non-negotiable.

9) Read Ender's Game. It's really good.