RinkerPatrick

I debate in high school for 4 years at Wichita East High School, and debated at Wichita State University for three years. I made it to the NDT my senior year there.


 * Kritiks**: These were not my preferred type of arguments and I am very unfamiliar with this literature in general. I also think that explaining the links and impacts in terms of the aff (or neg) is absolutely crucial.


 * Counterplans/DAs**: Please. I love all kinds of CPs and tend to think most of them are fine (PICs, Topical Counterplans, etc.); the exception is consult counterplans which I really do not like. Naturally, I can be convinced otherwise.


 * Topicality**: In general I would default to reasonability, but can be convinced otherwise. T in my mind is almost always a voting issue -- K affs included. I don't mind K affs but they should definitely be topical (or have a great defense of why they shouldn't be).


 * Theory**: I tend to think conditional arguments are okay, I will vote on theory if well debated, etc. Nothing too out of the ordinary here.


 * General:** offense/defense is really not my preferred paradigm -- if you can win no risk of a DA or an advantage I am definitely willing to treat that argument as zero risk. I love case debate. I tend to vote on the impact that a team best explains and discusses in the debate.