Power,+Brendan

I'll dock one speak per time you use the word "meta" as a prefix to "theory."

I will vote on almost any argument that is adequately warranted, properly extended, and impacted to some kind of evaluative standard. Please don't run theory unless actual and flagrant abuse is demonstrated. I have no preference as to different approaches in paradigm, but unless instructed otherwise I will default to viewing the resolution as a statement of truth.
 * __Short Version__**

I debated LD for 3 years for Ankeny High School in Iowa on both my local, and the national circuit. This is currently the only LD program with which I am conflicted.
 * __Long Version__**
 * Background:**

When reading this, just know that I seldom ran critical positions when I was debating and I'm not nearly as familiar with the literature you're cutting as you would like me to be. I think critical debates are really interesting, so if you're looking run something outside the box, I'd definitely enjoy listening to it. But I'm likely to misunderstand what your position if you're blazing through some pretty dense continental philosophy at upwards of 300 wpm. If I can't summarize what you're criticizing when you sit down after the 1NC, I'm going to have a very high threshold for voting on it. Especially if in the rebuttals you can't extend it without just reiterating the tags and cards.
 * Kritiks:**

I'm generally turned off by generic critiques of debate, without specific indictments of something the other debater did or said in round to detriment the debate community as a whole. It would be great if underrepresented racial/ethnic groups and women were more prominent at debate tournaments. I don't, however, feel as if this is a reason to vote for the first person to point this out.

I don't presume one way or another, unless you read reasons why I should.
 * Presumption:**

I usually default to viewing theory as a matter or reasonability, by which I mean I won't vote on theory unless actual abuse is demonstrated, absent you reading reasons why I should view it otherwise. I very much enjoy listening to developed and well-executed theory debates, and doing so will probably result in high speaks, but I have a pretty high threshold for voting on theory, and a very low one for RVIs and I meets. Fairness is always a voter. If your opponent says otherwise, please take my ballot and sign it for yourself. I will not vote on arguments that force me to evaluate out-of-round happenstances.
 * Theory:**

In my opinion, winning a counter-interpretation and either a) a pre-requisite standard to that interpretation or b) turns on the standards linking to your opponent's interpretation are a reason to vote for you on theory. I believe that winning an RVI, reasonability arguments, and proving why you don't violate the initial shell are also reasons to vote for you on theory, regardless of whether or not you win your counter-interp.

- Reading stupid theory shells as an easy way out of actually engaging the case will make me unhappy. - Being evasive in cross, belittling your opponent, and sleazy strats will all result in low speaker points. Don't be a dick.
 * Miscellaneous:**
 * -** If I'm watching you debate a novice debater, please be mindful of that. There's no reason for you to run any off case positions, or speed at all. If their first question in cross is "What's a NIB?" running theory on them is probably unnecessary.

If there was anything you felt was unclear, or a topic that I didn't cover in my paradigm that you feel is important to whichever strat you were planning on running in front of me, please feel free to have me clarify before round, or at any point during the tournament. Good luck!