Gerath,+Bill


 * Bill Gerath**
 * Bishop Guertin**


 * Topicality**: I have what is probably an unreasonably high threshold for voting on T. I tend to give affs a lot of leeway. It will be easier to win topicality if the 1AC is one I have never heard of (a subjective standard, I know, but it seems like a logical one) than if it is DADT or endstrength. While I would be willing to do so, I would be really frustrated to vote against any AFFs that I consider the core of the topic. Speaker points will be hurt if you go for T against an AFF I believe you should have a more creative strategy to.

These are fine, obv. I'm not very familiar with the disad debates this year. I hear wage inflation links?
 * Disads**

I am much more familiar with this literature. I am perfectly willing to vote on a politics/case strategy. That being said, I am frustrated by many politics disads, because I think the link evidence and even the coherence of the link story is often pretty poor. If that is the case, it is possible to win, and many teams do win, often reading a slew of short terrible cards. If that is the case, I will vote for you, but I will hurt your points.
 * Politics disads**

Disad/Counterplan debates can be interesting. I think conditionality is ok, but I would be willing to conclude that it is not. (Note: I am probably least competent at judging theory debates). I am also ok with most types of counterplans. I think agent counterplans and PICs are good. I think Consult counterplans aren't competitive. It is possible to win that they are, but your points will be hurt for running such a boring strategy.
 * Counterplans**

These are the most interesting debates, and can probably access a higher range of points from me. There are many ways critique debates can go down. It is not always necessary to win an alternative if you win that the debate should be evaluated in such a way that the AFF should be rejected in the absence of an alternative. These type of debates are generally specific to the K. I don't think running fiat good framework gets AFFs very far. Often it is necessary for AFFs to respond to framework claims that the NEG makes to avoid losing, but role-playing good is generally a weak and unspecific way to respond to those claims. Try to make them specific to the AFF. That's always nice. On the other hand though, I am more interested in a generic reps of terrorism K debate than a bad politics disad and specific case arguments.
 * Critiques**