Mohney,+Tod

**Affiliation**- I debated for 3 years on the national/state circuit at Perry High school in Ohio. I am currently a rising junior on the debate team at George Mason University. I attended the 2014 NDT. Tech > Truth Im a very technical debater and love a good tech debate. Favorite strats in front of me (but not to discourage other strats) are DA/CP or DA and case. **General notes-** Honestly, do what you do best. I will evaluate any argument at the end of the round and will try to intervene as little as possible. I plea/beg/demand that you impact your arguments and give me warranted reasons to vote for you. Without impacting your arguments it will 1. Make me unhappy 2. Make the debate extremely difficult to judge.

**Dis Ads**- THIS IS MY FAVORITE. There is nothing more I love than a good DA debate. Love politics. If you read a DA make sure to explain the impact scenario(s) and why it turns the case. If you lose the uniqueness debate you will probably lose (uniqueness almost always controls direction of link). If you are Aff in front of my try to be sneaky! Things like having the 1ar straight turn the DA for the majority of the speech goes a long way for me. This will increase your speaker points.

Politics theory- ipeshgiwehfk;aecjwdV- THAT IS HOW I FEEL. I really don’t like arguments like “vote no,” “fiat solves the link,” “intrinsicness”…but that doesn’t mean I wont vote on them. I find these arguments to be cheap shots but debate is a strategic game and if you are winning fiat solves the link I will probably vote for the winning argument.

**Couterplans-** I cool with any counterplans. Yes, even consult counterplans (they probably aren’t competitive to a certain degree, but that is up to you decide and make that argument) Obviously, the more specific counterplan to the aff the happier I am. Counterplans that have internal net benefits are also better, I find them to be more strategic. CP + DA = perfect strat in front of me.

**Kritiks**-topic specific K’s are best; however, I love it when teams make a generic K specific to the aff. I am open to any kritik but you need to clearly explain the link, impact, and what the world of the alternative looks like. Both teams normally mishandle framework but I traditionally default to consequentialist policymaking paradigm…K DEBATERS DON’T MISREAD THIS. That is what I deault to when no framework is presented. I am open to hearing the framework debate (from both sides) and why each side doesn’t meet the others interp. Make sure to impact your framework arguments. **Project/K affs-** If you are going to read these in front of me the best thing to do is explain the importance of my ballot, and what voting for you does. Really enjoy clash of civs debates. I've read untopical aff's that dont defend a plan/resolution. totally down with this debate.  **Topicality**- I feel that T is a voting issue and comes before anything in the round. Make sure to explain why your interp is important and why the other teams interp is bad for debate. Teams need to spend more time on impact level of the debate. If you are good at T I am probably a great judge for you.

**SPEC arguments** are alright… I don’t like them but I am open to them.  **Theory-** I dislike theory debates. I find them to be muddled and something that is only read so that the other team will drop it, but I guess that can be said about any argument. I most likely will reject the argument and not the team. If the opponent concedes a theory argument you still need to explain the abuse, and reasons to reject the team. You cant just stand up and be like “so yeah… the neg dropped condo bad… vote aff.” This not only will piss me off but it will also tank your speaks!