Phillips,+Hunter

4 years of policy at the high school level for Blackfoot High School (ID) Competed in Pacific Northwest bid tournaments (Silver and Black, Whitman) Debated in deep outrounds at NFL national tournament


 * Arguments**:


 * Topicality**: The affirmative should defend a plan that is resolutional. I'm open to listening to most any argument related to topicality, with the exception being critiques of topicality. I'll have a hard time finding most of those arguments very compelling, but if it's something very specific and applicable to a given topicality that's been run, I'll probably evaluate it.


 * Disadvantages:** Impact Calculus/Comparison. That is all. Actually, it's not. I love politics debates, but make sure your uniqueness is up to date, or else I will be sad.

**Counterplans**: I read a counterplan every negative round for three years in high school, so they're definitely my absolute preference. On past topics, I've really enjoyed big agent counterplans, but I was also very much into so-called "cheating" counterplans like Delay. As long as it can be justified by a solid theory argument, I'm game for whatever counterplan you can come up with.


 * Kritiks**: I was NOT a kritik debater in high school, but I was passionate about the framework debates involved. I'm not as well-versed in kritik literature as I'd like to be, but I can hang with most of the fare that's common in high school debate. There are some kritiks that I came across during my debate years that I absolutely despised-Time Cube, the "God" K, Deleuze/Guattari. If I hear one of these, you'll be facing an uphill battle for the ballot, but I'll try my best to put my predispositions aside.


 * Theory**: Theory debates were my bread and butter in high school, so I'm open to hearing just about anything. Disclaimer: I'll be less receptive to shell-on-shell theory debates without much clash. There's nothing worse than a theory debate that has two ships sailing in opposite directions. But, if you debate theory well, I will definitely vote on it.


 * Performance Debate**: Ugh, this is a tough spot for me. I like watching performance debate, but it's really, really ridiculously difficult to judge. I need a very clear reason as to why your advocacy should be evaluated as superior to a traditional affirmative. Also, your framework has to give a clear statement of the role of the ballot, or else I'll be more swayed by framework arguments leaning towards the traditional.


 * Case:** Do it if you can do it well. Don't read case for the sake of wanting to spread— do it because there's a specific reason to read it.

Basically, I will listen to anything. I'm extremely receptive to a good framework debate, but I love counterplans and topicality as well. **Clarity is extremely important**. Have a sense of humor about things, it'll make it more enjoyable for everyone. Don't go for too much in the 2NR; just keep it simple. Above all else, be nice, and have some fun.