Steckler,+Christian

Bishop Guertin High School and University of Kentucky

1- I have no biases for or against any arguments that would influence my decision.

2- Theory should be in every 2AC. I am willing but not trying to vote on conditionality is bad. I also don't think it's outrageous to contend that certain forms of fiat could be voting issues.

3- I will resolve arguments in their entirety, which is to say that I won't assign a "risk" to a link unless this evaluation is justified. The affirmative can win that there is 'no risk' of a disad even if a counterplan solves the case. The most persuasive articulations of impact calculus are those which implicate //the magnitude and specificity of the internal link to the impact//.

4- Uniqueness of links and impacts will guide the way I resolve the issues suggested above.

5- Framework is about the prioritization of arguments and establishing criteria for decision - rarely ever a voting issue.

6- Kritiks don't need alternatives, only a reason to reject the affirmative - the negative negates.

7- Dropped arguments will be held to be true, but unanswered assertions will not. Claims must rise to a certain standard to be considered arguments - whatever this standard may be contested, but it's typically met with just a couple warrants.

8- Reasonability is a good argument when explained as a reason why the affirmative does not need to win a superior counter-interpretation.