Olson,+Dillon

I am a policy debater for Weber State. I am happy when the teams make it easy for me to vote. I will vote on ANYTHING as long as it is articulated well and well warranted. My threshold on theory and topicality may not be as high as others, but I definitely need to have well impacted arguments, and the standards and ground loss need to be shown. (Unless you can win that potential abuse would be a voter.) I like Da's but that is only when they are well done. If the tags are just being re read and the arguments are purely post dating ones, it won't be particularly convincing. I do like politics DA, but I like work to be done heavily on the link debate, and of course the impact level. I will vote on a CP that doesn't solve all case, if the Net benefit is worth the risk. As far as the K goes, this is probably my favorite section of debate, I understand most of the K literature, and if you run an argument I haven't heard before I can keep up, as long as your extrapolation is adequate. Ultimately I just let the debaters take the round where they want to, whatever you have to say I will listen.

CX isn't binding, but I do feel a reference from Cross examination can be really effective. Just because a team concedes something doesn't mean you win. Work needs to be done on these arguments, and explain how these concessions. impact my decision of the ballot.