Judging+philosophy

I feel like the debate should be weighed in a mechanism that makes it easier for myself to warrant my ballot, in terms of some type of impact(s). Basically an offense/defense based paradigm. __**Topicality:**__ I feel like competing interpretations is where I am going to default if I do not get a framework for the debate, however that does not mean that reasonability is something I will not weigh; I like it and will weigh it. I also am open to arg's indicating pre-fiat comes before T or that condo comes before T/is a pre-req to topicality. I also think that impact turning topicality is strategic depending on what aff is ran. Impact turning T and making RVI arguments are not the same. RVI makes no sense, because there's no in round abuse or potential abuse. This is the other thing, I need a particular in round abuse story or potential abuse; please make this clear in your analysis of the standards debate. __**Disads:**__ Not a whole lot to say beside yeah __**Counterplan:**__ A. PIC: Sure, I think it's an good start depending on the aff B. Agent: Same as above C. Word PIC: Ehh, depends. I think some are good depending on the topic while some are particularly, I guess you could say, dumb. None the less run it, however I might be prone to lean aff on some of the theory. D. Competition: Can be textual, functional, or philosophical (K) i. External: I feel like the permutation debate really does not solve the risk of the link ii. Internal: With the right warrants, the permutation may resolve the risk of a internal net benefit. E. __**Theory**__: I usually err neg on counterplan theory. My personal objective is that for conditionality specifically, that it's good. HOWEVER, that does not mean the same thing as contradictory conditional/dispositional/unconditional worlds being illegitimate. That's a better interpretation that I'm more willing to vote on, or the negative have a certain amount of advocates, due to balance of fairness. I feel like competing interpretations here is what I will be evaluating on specifically, excluding T. __**Kritiks**__: No problem with this, and I read one particular argument all the time in high school (to be unnamed because I don't want the 1000 page back files to come out and be shown like mine); just explain your criticism. I think that role of the ballot arguments are good arguments and strategic ones at that. Although I think that framework arguments against the kritik are fine, be prepared to fight a uphill battle depending on the team. A lot of teams have better answers than what I ever will have. I think that pre-fiat arguments here are fine too, and I think the aff needs to do a little bit of weighing here. I've found that too may teams are not doing that lately for whatever reason. __**Permutations:**__ A lot of teams are not explaining permuations, which is becoming problematic for me to evaluate. Instead of running the pre-written permutation shells that are not applicable, make sure that you run ones that are clearly warranted to the debate. Also, I have no basis of fairness threshold for permutations. Just make sure you warrant them. If you shift the permutation in the block or latter, I promise I WILL notice. That will become hard for you to win that debate if it shifts deep in the block (1NR/2NR), and resultantly I probably will not evaluate the new argument. That, or I will lean to basic argumentation in the 1ar/2ar. __**Clipping Cards:**__ Don't do it; it's cheating. I'll vote you down.

__**Where I come from:**__ I come from a small school, Lampasas. Do not let this persuade you though. I competed on the Austin/Central Texas TFA circuit, where I did very well debating with a freshman. I debated for the first year of my college career at UNT, but now I work fr Microsoft so I do not have time to debate unfortunately. Please do not also feel like I can not keep up, because I probably can. If I can't, I'll be honest and say year.