Kraft,+Phillip

I debated LD for 4 years at Belleville East High School. I've debated Parli for 3 years for Loyola University Chicago. I've judged countless policy rounds for the Chicago Debate League over the last 3 years, and I am now the novice assistant coach for Walter Payton. Never debated policy. Parli is Policy minus backside rebuttals, ev, and a year long resolution.

I'll vote on a fundamentally incorrect, racist, or flawed piece of argument. It is not up to me to evaluate the truth value of these claims unless there are competing truth claims with neither side arguing which I should prefer. This means I will vote on a DA that says that the sky is green, plan makes the sky blue, and that causes extinction. ignoring a dropped, stupid argument allows these positions to continue unchallenged. The same goes for racist arguments. I'm not about to give a 2JR because you can't answer a bad argument.

Key points: I vote on my flow. I'm not a very good flow, so you need to make sure I get the argument. I don't think any specific argument necessarily comes first, so you need to tell me. If you are muttering your author's name, I'm not writing it down (I might just not write it down anyway) so you need to extend the tag and/or warrant. I like structure, numbering, and sub-points. Any turn requires uniqueness: otherwise it's linear. 2NR/2ARs should have overviews that write the ballot. Impact calc is comparative, not just a claim that your T-F is fast, your scenario is huge, and your I/Ls are super probable. These are all relative notions, and the most clean debates are won by the 2 explaining why their opponent's impact happens after theirs, and/or their impact turns/solves for their opponents. Slow down and/or repeat advocacies.

I don't really have any specific predispositions. I enjoy a __good__ cheater CP debate, like a conditions CP, delay, XO avoiding a bipart politics scenario, consult, etc. I'd prefer to evaluate theory as a justification for a smart, abusive perm rather than reject the team.
 * Theory**

If you are going for T, answer all aff args and flow. The speech doc is hopefully missing some args to punish you for your inability to listen. No predispositions means I don't have a problem voting on potential abuse unless the aff tells me not to.

I usually go for CP and a DA or just politics, so I'm not a fan of the K. I think Kritikal affirmatives are often just an excuse not to defend solvency, and screw the neg into defending the opposite of a non-falsifiable truth claim that the aff doesn't do anything to achieve. It's a great strategy. That said, I am very convinced by smart link turns and solvency takeouts against a K aff: if you can engage the role of the ballot question on that level, you're golden. If you understand why their framework doesn't justify abdication of the res, you can probably get by in front of me. Often non-topical project affs are equivalent to saying "I'm pretty, so vote for me" or "I've been oppressed, so vote for me." Debate is a zero-sum game, so this presumes access to knowledge about your opponent's lives that you cannot possibly have, and it often rests on fundamentally classist or racist assumptions similar to those which you are rejecting. The non-topical K affs I've seen were admittedly poorly run, though, so feel free to impress. The easy way to do that is to mine for a link in the 2ac. I don't know if I vote for role of the ballot args without a reason the negative increases the problem.
 * Ks**

That said, I'm a fan of a well deployed K on the neg with a well articulated link. Your framework needs to tie the aff to their rhetoric in the 1ac. If it doesn't, the perm probably solves residual links. Best kritiks turn case.