Bower,+Andrew

Edited for Stanford 2016:

I debated at Miramonte in California for four years, primarily competing on the LD national circuit. I am also conflicted with Lynbrook/Ventura.

__**In the words of Chris Kymn, "The role of the ballot is to say my name a lot." Seriously though, this is probably a good test to see if you're adapting properly. If necessary, refer to the note at the bottom for a different method of adaptation.**__

Please, please, please slow down on all analytical arguments (this includes underviews, texts/interpretations, dumps, etc.) and take the time to emphasize structural pauses.
 * NEW: Even if I'm not a 1 for you, I believe you can win my ballot as long as you do comparative weighing (magnitude vs probability, k vs theory, fairness vs education, etc.) in the rebuttal speeches. __Spending all of your speech time on the line-by-line doesn't usually provide me with a clear way to vote.__ I love it when debaters slow down and tell me to highlight a few key arguments on my flow or establish a clear order for evaluating arguments. Make strategic trade-offs and you will be rewarded!**

There are not many positions that I am categorically opposed to hearing, but I sometimes struggle in understanding fast-paced, dense philosophical and critical debates. //Translation: Phil should **not** be the A-strat in front of me.// I'm probably best at resolving a util debate, but that should not limit the scope of your argumentation. Feel free to read other positions, but I suggest erring on the side of over-explanation and really explain why your offense impacts best into your framework. Slowing down is also a good idea too!

I have a few defaults on the Theory/T debate, but I would really prefer to evaluate these debates based on arguments made in the round. Absent arguments made in the round, theory and topicality are both reasons to drop the debater and are both RVIs (if you think I'm cray, just warrant something else during your speech). I also assume competing interpretations, so please extend offense on these debates or give me a brightline for reasonability (and tell me what that means). Also, please don't forget to weigh on the theory debate.
 * NEW: If there is an extremely messy theory debate AND a very clean path to the ballot on the substance layer of debate, I will vote on the substance if I cannot resolve the theory debate within 15 minutes. Just to clarify, I do not plan on always disregarding theory; instead, I hope to incentivize theory debaters to weigh offense, rather than forcing me to arbitrarily prefer certain arguments.**


 * PS If any of this scares you, feel free to use the pref sheet as an insurance policy against me.**