Garrett,+Lincoln

Name= Lincoln Garrett Affiliation=University of Kentucky and Niles North

No prep for flashing, but use email if you can. No RFD until wiki is updated Mostly for high school kids: If I catch you doing stuff after prep has been declared over, I am taking off .2 from whatever your speaker points will be. If you don't want me to think you are doing something, remove your hands from your computer when prep ends. Big Picture Stuff: Debate is about hard work and effective communication. I appreciate those that demonstrate effort in honing their presentation and their strategy. Arguments should be substantiated with quality evidence.

Topicality: T is a voting issue and never a reverse one. I don’t have strong feeling about competing interpretations vs. reasonability. CP Theory: Reject the argument not the team except for conditionality. CP’s that fail to compete off a mandate of the plan are suspect. CP’s theoretical legitimacy is boosted when evidence is provided to support debaters’ assertions related to predictability, literature base, etc. Conditional CP/K's are never a reason to vote AFF and will be kicked if it is proven that conditionality is good and they are worse then the status quo. Disadvantages: Five bad cards don’t outweigh one good card. In a contested debate link is more important than uniqueness. Politics DA is intrinsic in theory, but what people think counts as a supporting piece of evidence is laughable. Kritkis: If they have alternatives, they should have written texts. The team that wins the framework for evaluating links and impacts will probably win. I think the questions raised are valid, but requires sleight of hand to be a reason to vote against the AFF. Framework et al.,: Have judged a surprising number of these deabtes in my short two years, can't say I expected it given my argumenative choices as a debater. I think the record reflects I don't vote overwhelmingly for one side over the other. I find debaters do a lot of grand-standing in these kinds of debates and that trades off with providing me useful information that would actually help resolve the debate. Generally manifests itself as one side dropping the thing that nullifies why everything else they are talking about matters. If you have specific questions about how I view these debates or anything else feel free to email me.