Wyzykowski,+Michael


 * Affiliation**: Westwood High School, UTD (I don't debate in college)


 * General**: I'm open-minded and willing to vote for any argument if you can convince me to vote for it. Spark/Nuclear malthus/wipeout are interesting, racism good/patriarchy good/other things along these lines aren't arguments. Try to be nice in round, have fun, and learn something. Keeping this in mind, take everything I say below with a grain of salt.

I was a 1A/2N in highschool and typically went for impact turns, kritiks, or politics and case. I don't think that biases me too much, but I think I'm less likely to let the 2A get away with new arguments. I tend to not find "risk of" arguments compelling. It is possible for a side to win impact/internal link take outs and have that effect the round in a meaningful way in the context of net benefits etc. I tend to be more compelled by structural impacts more so than risks of nuclear war etc. I //really// like impact turns. Dropped arguments are true arguments, but that doesn't mean you don't have to explain the warrant to a claim if the other team drops it.


 * Topicality ** : I don't particularly enjoy topicality debates and I tend to think of T in terms of competing interpretations.

I tend to err aff on theory in the context of abusive counterplans. I tend to err neg on conditionality, unless the neg has presented an obnoxious number of conditional advocacies. Most theory is a reason to reject the argument, unless it's an argument the negative has gone for (you said 50 state fiat was bad and won that argument when they went for the states counterplan), or conditionality. As a result, don't waste time reading your theory block (except in the context of condo) when you're kicking the counterplan in the block. Just address them as a reason to reject the counterplan. Aff's conversely shouldn't try and win on these theory arguments that a negative has kicked out of (except in the context of condo).
 * Theory**: I don't particularly enjoy theory debates.

I usually think the link determines the direction of the link.
 * Disads ** : They're great. The more specific the evidence, the better. Super specific, well researched disads are probably the most compelling arguments in front of me.


 * Counter Plans ** : Not a large fan of abusive counterplans or pics, but otherwise they're cool.

**On the neg**- There is a large chance I won't really know what you're talking about if your argument isn't biopower/security/cap/fem. That's okay if you want to read a critical argument that's not one of the above, it just puts extra emphasis on your ability to explain it well. I'm generally not persuaded by generic links with little to no analysis specific to the affirmative. Explain to me why I should evaluate your criticism first Explain to me how your criticism interacts with the affirmatives impacts and internal links **On the aff**- Instrumentally affirming the resolution on the affirmative is important. If you don't instrumentally affirm the resolution in some way, I am very sympathetic to framework arguments. I think policy making is an important mechanism for enacting change in the real world and we should play devil's advocate if we don't agree with that sentiment.
 * Kritiks ** : I really like K's. They're interesting, and force both teams to view the debate in a new lens. My largest complaint however is when a team comes up, reads a generic K with generic evidence and doesn't really explain how it interacts with the other side.