Ault,+Scott

I come into the round as a completely open book. I vote for what I'm told. It is the debaters job to tell me how to evaluate a round and then prove to me that they have won in that context. I will vote for anything that is explained and impacted. When debaters fail to explain or impact then I will disregard the point.

I'm not incredibly well-versed in theory or kritiks, and I prefer to hear debates on the resolution itself, so while I'm not inherently against voting on them, you'll have to do more work to convince me to do so, barring a grievous abuse by one debater.

In regards to speed, go as fast as you want, but be aware that if something is missed due to trying to cram as much in as possible, then I will not be able to use it in my decision. I would advise not going faster than you would in a normal conversation amongst friends, since that is normally the best speed to which the amount of needed information can be attained.

In regards to counterplans, I think they are some of the most strategic and entertaining arguments negative teams can come up with. Impact calculus is important - tell be which lense is most important and why - speed > size etc.

Explain which internal links are most important and why the CP solves those best - why does the net benefit outweigh the remaining risk of a solvency deficit?

Ultimately, have fun with this debate, and if you are having fun the other team will as well and the other people in the room.