Harris,+Ashley

Cards-If you want me to evaluate your evidence you Affirmative's must have clear extension of the evidence by author and preferably date as well in the 1AR AND the 2AR. Negative's must do the same thing from the block to the 2NR. I will call for cards that are questionable or called out by the other team.

Topicality/Theory/Framework-I tend to start the evaluation of the debate from this point. I love a good impact calculus. I am willing to pull the trigger on theory and topicality. On the other side of the equation, if you are a kritikal/performance team, I am willing to evaluate impacts on framework/topicality/theory. I default to competing interpretations in all of these debates unless you provide an argument for me not to.

Counterplans-I tend to err negative on a lot of theoretical counterplan objections such as (dispo, PICs, and condo), but I will vote on these issues with an in round abuse story and good impact calculus on theory. Affirmatives will have to strategically invest time for me to vote on counterplan theory. I am more prone to pull the trigger for the affirmative on consult counterplan and procedural counteprlans like delay counterplans theory.

Kritik-I do not have a problem with them. Specific link analysis will help you earn my ballot. I think that the alternative must be explained for me to vote for the criticism. If there is not a criticism, the negative should justify their lack of a solvency advocate for explain why the status quo solves. I am comfortable with a majority of the kritikal literature but I tend to need more explanation of the link/alternative/perm interaction for you to earn my ballot.

Bottom line-I will try and intervene as least as possible. The only "rules" that I will enforce are speech times. Thank you so much. 