Sundquist,+Chris

I am a freshman in college and debated for Rowland Hall for all four years in high school. I helped out at the SCFI debate camp over the summer so I have a basic understanding of the topic; however, you should not expect me to know all of the acronyms and the topic specific jargon. I am open to a range of arguments and try to let debaters run what they want to, but it should be noted that I default to a policymaking framework.

**Theory**: I think theory is very strategic in debate rounds. That being said, I think a lot of theory debates become vacuous because they devolve into battles of whose blocks are better. I want to see a lot of clash and well-impacted arguments on the theory flow. I think depth outweighs breadth when evaluating theory.

**Topicality**: I will vote for T. Like any argument, I think that clash is important on the T flow and that in order to create a truly compelling argument you must focus on impacting your standards.

**Framework:** I think utilizing framework can really help you get ahead in the round, but your analysis should be more focused on impacting your claims rather than on making a larger number of arguments. I also think that clash and contextualizing your framework arguments in terms of how they interact with the other teams claims is crucial.

**Kritiks:** I would not say that I am particularly well versed in kritikal literature, however I have debated and gone for the K a number of times and will definitely evaluate it in the round. I prefer K debates that have more line-by-line clash. I value case specific K analysis, especially on the link level of the debate. I may default to policymaking, but that does not mean that I won’t vote for a critical framework if you are winning your arguments; however, know that the burden of explaining your arguments is a little higher if you are running a more obscure K.

**K Affs:** I think a lot of my views on Ks apply here. I would infinitely prefer a more topic specific K aff with a stable message/story. I am probably not the best judge if you want to run a more “crazy” K aff, but I will try to evaluate it to the best of my ability. I n other words, I have no real objection to K Affs, but it may require more work in terms of explaining your Kritikal idea to get me to vote for you.

**CPs:** I prefer specific to generic. I think generic CPs can be strong, but you should focus on showing how they are applicable and relevant to the Aff. In terms of CP theory, I try to be unbiased in my evaluation of the arguments. I typically default to reject the arg not the team, but it is a debate and I can be convinced otherwise.

**DAs:** I really like DA debates. I think that DA+Case and DA+CP can be really strong negative strategies. I think politics DAs are strategic. I think having Case D is critical if you are going to go for the DA. I value impact calc. a lot on Case v. DA debates. This includes magnitude, probability, and timeframe; however, I think you should try to go deeper in your analysis to address issues such as impact encompassment and more nuanced evaluations.