Wardle,+Arthur

Arthur Wardle

3 years debating, attended SCFI 2-week and Georgetown 3-week

An argument consists of three things--a claim, a warrant, and an impact.

I can keep up with your speed--but slowing down on tags will really help your speaks.

While I have biases (which I'll talk about more below), I will vote for anything. That includes cheap-shot arguments, though I'm obviously going to have a higher threshold in accordance with how sketchy something is.

T: While in-round abuse really does help, I believe it's possible to win on potential abuse. Reasonability/Competing Interpretations debates are convincing to me. T really is about impact analysis--proving they are not topical is not enough to win topicality--you have to win that being untopical is BAD. Government based definitions with clear distinctions are more convincing than relying on standards with a shoddy definition.

For Condo, I agree with Andrew Arsht: 2 is fine, 3 is pushing it, 4 is dumb. Of course a condo debate can still happen with only 1 condo argument, but it's going to be a lot harder to convince me.

F/W: I default to policymaker but you can convince me however you want. For full disclosure I've always been a policy team, so I probably have some sort of precognitive bias towards policymaking frameworks.

K: I don't really like the way that K debate has evolved in policy debate--but I'm stilling willing to vote for them. I do think that you should have an overview in the block just to explain the philosophy behind the K--no matter whether you think I already know it or not. Assume I've never heard of the philosophy and debate from that standpoint (unless it's a Cap K or something equally prolific).

Case: I don't really have any different opinions about the aff--for K affs see the F/W and K sections.

CP: Plan-specific CPs are fantastic. I am not talking about States CPs with specific solvency cards, I'm talking about specific counterplans. I don't love process/consult/actor/etc CP's but I'll vote for them. 2NC CPs are sketchy but if the aff isn't winning theory I'll still vote for them.

DA: Nothing special here either. I don't love the Ptx DA but I'll vote on it.

Zero risk exists. Even-if statements are mint.

I'm here because I like policy and I want to help you do better. You should want to be here, and even if you don't, you should pretend you do. If I'm judging you at one of those godawful tournaments that don't allow disclosure, find me after the round sometime and I'll be happy to give some critiques.

I love warrant comparison and impact analysis. Do that and you'll be fine.