Fernandez,+Jason

I am neither a theory-phile nor a theory-phobe. My background in high school and college policy debate precludes it. When executed properly and in appropriate circumstances, I believe theory to be a useful and necessary part of defining the 'rules of the game.' Please reserve your use of theory for these situations and that is to say that a theory violation that is missing one of the parts or isn't extended properly will not be part of my decision calculus. That said, I believe that all theory issues are evaluated before any other issue in the round and that they are lexically prior to any other substantive issue. In nearly every case, I will require that a clearly articulated abuse story is present in order to evaluate the theory argument. Please just be clear in what you are talking about and why it's important. On topicality, I believe this to be a gateway issue for the affirmative so if the aff loses topicality, they lose. I don't believe that you can RVI topicality, so please don't even attempt that in front of me. It's silly to suggest that because the aff is fair, they win the round; in my book, if the aff is fair, then we can debate. I'll cover other theoretical objections as they relate to specific arguments later. In general, I am not a big fan of theory-baiting or a blatant attempt to "out-tech" your opponent. If it's not necessary, don't do it. Within reason, CX is binding, contradictions are bad, etc. Be reasonable and you'll be fine.
 * Theory arguments**

As should be plainly obvious, you need to be clear if you are going fast. I will say "clear" if you are not and if you hear that from me twice, you should slow down dramatically or you'll lose points. I prefer good fast debate to good slow debate but if you are going to engage in spreading a lot of bad arguments, that will impact your speaker points even if you get the win. I will always prefer carded answers and turns and am much more lenient on speed when you're reading applicable cards. Please be clear with tags, authors, etc so I can easily reference your arguments relative to the answers and signpost more clearly the faster you go. Pausing in the signposting (i.e., author names and dates) is a must. Speed is not an excuse to omit warrants, skip extentions, or otherwise be blippy. I'm not a fan of the "throw a bunch of random answers to a case and see what sticks" strategy. Please use the speed tool wisely. Also please be wary of extending through ink, claiming that answers are non-responsive (and making non-responsive answers), and calling arguments turns that aren't turns. I don't need an order at the top of the speech unless you need me to sort or start a new page.
 * Speed**

I am not predisposed (either in favor or opposed) to alternative strategies in principle. However, I will hold you to the standards of argument that apply to the strategy you've chosen. I presume that we default to the value premise/criterion model unless some other evaluative metric is presented. Certain alternative strategies have inherent structures that are important such as kritik that must have links, impacts, and an alternative; a counterplan must be net-beneficial and mutually exclusive etc. The phrase "law solves" does not constitute a counterplan in my book and will possess a low threshold for answer by the aff, for example. Off-case arguments, as debaters like to call them, seem to me to just function as DA's to the case unless otherwise explained. Anything that you label as "independent" should have an independent evaluatory mechanism. I still don't know what an a priori argument is and am not a big fan of them but I won't ignore them if they are warranted and unanswered. However, just because you label something as "pre-standards" or "a priori" doesn't make it so. You need to warrant the priority of that argument and explain the evaluation I should employ. I am not impressed by debaters who win the round before they walk in so if you employ that strategy, you may win but you're not getting high points from me. I am predisposed to accept theory arguments about multiple a prioris or contradictory counterplans etc. As well, I'm not sure what overviews are because they serve some other argumentative function so just call them what they are and debate them as such. Finally, if you're running something obtuse or obscure, please be sure you're explaining it well and how it functions in the round. **If I don't get it, I won't vote for it.** Remember, a debater has 13 speaking minutes in a round. Make sure that is enough time to articulate your position.
 * Alternative argumentative strategies (K, CP, DA, etc)**

As I mentioned before, all theory arguments are evaluated first so you don't need to do that leg work for me. If there are multiple theory arguments, though, you'll want to prioritize. The rest you'll need to order for me to help me make my decision. In many cases, debaters get this wrong (saying something is a voting issue doesn't make it one) so I attempt to evaluate the arguments given your order of operations and the correct one to determine how the round plays out. Importantly, if you are going to employ an "even-if" strategy, please be clear about it. I will certainly be receptive to this explanation as long as it doesn't run afoul of conditional/incompatible advocacies. The more incompatible your strategies, the fewer you should run, the clearer your explanation needs to be, and the lower my threshold is for accepting a theory argument. Evaluating arguments is typically relative to the round but in general, arguments that are clearly impacted and weighed relative to a standard are the very important. In general, I don't tend to "pull the trigger" on an isolated extension especially if it's not impacted and applied to the overall set of arguments. By this, I mean that I'm not a fan of the "cheap shot" strategy. Impact calculus is really important for every set of arguments in the debate.
 * Evaluating the round**

It is extremely important that the debaters provide with me an evaluative framework for the arguments in the round. Without you giving me one, I will create my own.