Siegrist,+Aaron

A couple general comments: 1. I am a 3rd year varsity debater for Liberty University. 2. I have not yet judged any rounds on this topic, so clear explanation of arguments, acronyms, etc. is welcomed and recommended.

The specifics:

Counterplans- Love them. Make them smart, and if possible make them specific. I have no staunch proclivities on competition questions. I do, however, generally find word pics to be unpersuasive. Unless, of course, you are reading an aff about discourse.

Disads- Love them as well, and the more specific the better. I do believe it is possible to prove zero risk of the disad, just as I believe it is possible to win zero risk of an advantage.

Framework- I am strongly predisposed to believe that defending USFG action is good. It is not impossible for me to be convinced otherwise, but doing so will require a substantial amount of offense on questions of fairness and education.

Kritiks- I am not well versed in critical literature, but I do have a sufficient understanding of most generic uses and applications of these arguments. Critical debates are extremely interesting if well executed, but painful if handled incompetently. If this is your strategy, then go for it. If you have other options, however, I would probably be more adept at adjudicating those positions.

Topicality- I generally default to a standard of competing interpretations. I don't find reasonability arguments unpersuasive by any means, but I do believe that affirmatives should have a defense of their conception of topic ground. Evidence is extremely important to me on topicality questions. I strongly believe that the most educational and beneficial template for the topic is one determined by the literature. RVIs are very very unpersuasive to me. I will dock speaker points if these arguments are extended.

Theory-I find these debates interesting and enjoy seeing them fleshed out effectively. I do have a few predilections that are worth mentioning: 1. Go slow. I will be more than willing to dock speaker points for those who incomprehensibly speed through theory arguments. 2. I will generally defer to a standard of rejecting the argument unless it is made clear to me why this is an insufficient remedy. 3. Conditionality: It will be difficult to convince me that one conditional advocacy approaches the level of abuse necessary to warrant rejecting the team. This is not to say it cannot be done. All arguments will be evaluated as they are presented. If you are crushing a team on conditionality I will certainly be willing to pull the trigger regardless of my leanings. 4. Pics: I am very neg leaning when it comes to this issue. I am very persuaded by the argument that affirmatives should have to defend the entirety of the plan. 5. Consult/States Counterplans: Probably terrible for debate. 6. International actor Counterplans: While I do think that these have the potential to steal a significant portion of aff ground, I do believe there are situations where these can be legitimate. I will generally determine this based off of what the literature defends. This means if you are defending the legitimacy of an EU counterplan you should be prepared to read evidence explaining the relevance of the EU to discussions of the topic, and it's potential to act in the stead of the US.