Harris,+Bradley

**Harris, Bradley. (Senior at the University of Kansas). Debated 3 Years at Lawrence Free State high school, 4 years University of Kansas.** **(TLDR version: look at the bold)** **Be smart and make smart arguments,** smart true analytics are infinitely more persuasive than a slew of bad cards. **Be nice. Be polite and respectful,** not just to each other, but to the room, having space for the activity is a privilege. **Debate should be fun and humor is appreciated**. It is a communication and educational activity. I'll be relaxed about jump time unless it's egregious. If it is then prep time stops when the flash drive comes out of the computer. I shouldn't have to say it but **be ethical, don't clip, don't cheat.** I realize most of you just care if you can read your K aff, K, T, or spread. Go for it. I believe I should work my hardest to make the best decision I can because debaters work hard. I also believe you should **do what you do best** and that I should try and keep my predispositions from getting in the way.

"Boring" argument specific predispositions mostly paraphrased from the people who have influenced my view of debate.

I'll default to offense/defense unless told otherwise when evaluating most arguments.

Impact calculus should be done, so should explanations of link and solvency differentials.

**Topicality/Framework** - it's a voting issue, not a reverse voting issue. Interpretations matter. Reasonability is less persuasive to me in most cases. Yes limits is an impact, no I don't think limits are violent. Typically I believe affirmatives should defend some instance of the resolution.

**Counterplans/DAs/Case debate** - Yes please. I'm willing to say 0% risk of something if there is a sufficient argument made. See above comment on link/solvency analysis. Solvency advocates are important.

**Theory** - Warrant and impact please. Not my favorite thing to vote on but I will if necessary.

Specific predispositions:

Conditionality - Good <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">PICs - Good <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Consult/Condition - context specific (probably should have a solvency advocate) <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Delay - Aff leaning <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Word PICs - Aff leaning <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Non US actors - Probably aff leaning.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Kritiks/Critical Affirmatives** - Assume I'm not super deep into your literature base. I've read/gone for/voted for them. I think they are strategic. You should contextualize your links as well as explanations of the alternative vs the perm and case. You also should have more than a link of omission. I prefer critical affirmatives that have a tie to the resolution, it's not impossible for you to win that it shouldn't be, see T/FW above.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**If you're doing an email chain please include bradleyharris14@gmail.com**