Wardak,+Ryan

Ryan Wardak I debated for 3 Years at Broad Run High School and I currently debate now for James Madison University General thoughts about Debate Specific Arguments used in debate
 * I’m Pretty fine with most arguments, but the onus is on you all to explain your arguments and execute your strategy
 * Generally I think tech comes before truth and a dropped argument is a true argument unless you don’t impact it out well. A dropped argument is a claim and a warrant; this makes dropped arguments much more credible and easier to weigh
 * Debate as if I don’t know your lit base too well especially when I do not know that much about this year’s topic, so a good explanation of your T violation, or the DA scenario, or the technical jargon in your K would go a long ways
 * I privilege in round spin; I will call for cards if need be, but I think that cards don't make arguments, debaters make arguments. I won't evaluate warrants that are in your cards or make judgments about evidence quality unless they were fleshed out adequately in the constructives/rebuttals. I can be compelled by a well-warranted and well-impacted analytic over a poorly extended series of carded claims
 * I can vote on defense. There can be a zero percent chance of a link as well as no internal link in a DA, but I tend to evaluate debates in an offense-defense paradigm unless told otherwise. This can all change if you give me reasons not to evaluate low probability arguments or alternative methods to evaluate the round.
 * I always flow and debates in which both teams are organizationally sound will make me happy. If you are organized, it will probably reflect in your speaks and help your chances for a win. If it’s not clean then that might make it harder for me to render a decision you would like because it would take the debate out of your hands and force me to do a little bit of work. Things like long overviews will make me cry because I think many things said on top of the flow can be applied to specific areas on the flow, but if you think there are strategic arguments and framing questions you need to highlight, have no fear of giving me a short concise explanation
 * Topicality—I default to competing interpretations unless convinced otherwise. You should give me a case list of affs justified by your interpretation as well as the ground the neg allows and why that should be preferred over the other teams interpretation (I.E. Explain why their caselist/ground given is bad compared to your interpretation) because I don’t believe that exploding limits is inherently bad or that sapping X piece of ground is intrinsically bad
 * Theory—I have a tough time voting on theory unless it is articulated and impacted well; I have a tough time voting on cheapshots like severance unless it is dropped. 2 conditional advocacies are usually fine and anything more makes conditionality easier to vote for. Last thing, you would be better off slowing down so I can flow all your arguments because it is hard to flow every argument in a theory block at full speed
 * Counterplans-- I tend to lean aff on questions of the theoretical legitimacy of Counterplans (e.g. Conditions, Consult, and Process Counterplans), but I will try to reduce the impact of any bias I have because teams should be able to read what they want as long as they can give a competent defense of it. The way I will evaluate the Counterplan vs. the plan in the 2nr is by evaluating the consequences of the affirmative’s solvency deficits and compare them to the net benefits to the counterplan. If you want me to evaluate it differently than that, you should tell me of your alternative framing during the debate
 * Disadvantages—it is relatively simple—I evaluate risk of link and impact and compare them to the case. I am persuaded by spin on the disads rather than the card quality (although awesome link cards should definitely allow you to make better analysis). Well-articulated UQ/link/internal link takeouts can be persuasive and mitigate the risk of the DA. Please don’t read a long impact overview with multiple cards; make those arguments on the impact debate or wherever it’s relevant. If you have a contrived internal link story, then feel free to give a short explanation
 * Kritiks—I have read them along with other arguments in the past. They can be effective when given a clear link story and alt explanation. I think that teams that read Kritiks should really focus on the framework debate because many teams on the aff do not do a good job of contesting framework which makes it a lot easier to default to alternative framings. I’m fine with the kritik as long as the link/alt story is fleshed out and impacted well. I have seen many teams have long overviews that force the judge to take out a new sheet to flow on; these muddle up the debate in my opinion and going down the flow and applying the arguments would probably be better.
 * Framework—I believe that Teams should be able to read arguments as long as they can justify reading those types of arguments. I don’t find myself extremely partial to either side and can see myself voting for a team that reads a non-traditional affirmative as well as a team reading framework. Both teams should give competing visions of what their interpretation would justify. Reading a bunch of cards in the block does not make for a good framework debate. I think framework should be less card intensive and more about specific analysis contextualized to the affirmative. Historical examples on both sides will help me assess the validity of your arguments.