Background: I am a graduate of MSU and debated at Brookfield Central in High School. I worked at the SDI this summer for four weeks and judged at New Trier and U of M.

As with most people, take my philosophy with a grain of salt because I can be persuaded that these things are not the case but these are my general defaults.
Meta Thoughts:
  1. A dropped argument that is stupid is not “true” and therefore a slayer but I would consider myself primarily flow and tech oriented
  2. I think hard work should be the model for debate and specific strategies are encouraged (as well as good evidence)

CP Theory: I find myself leaning neg on a lot of CP theory questions (agent, pics, dispo, states) and think that you should reject the argument not the team. I do not think that CPs that compete on the certainty of plan (consult, condition) are competitive but that this is a reason the aff should get permutation and not a reason to reject the CP in most instances. As a side note, it’s debatable but I think if a CP links to a DA 99% and the case 100% it’s probably not a net benefit just because of the 1% link differential.
-->Conditionality- this is an area where I've started to move farther into the aff camp. My predisposition is that the neg should get one conditional counterplan. I've not heard many good reasons that the neg should get multiple counterplans. It think that 1 is a logical limit and that to say that 2 or more is OK becomes a slippery slope. I think we all need to do a better job of protecting the aff in this department because multiple counterplans make it strategic suicide for the aff to make their best answers and forecloses a real search for the "best policy option." Along this vein, unless the neg explicitly says it I will not "reject the CP and default to the status quo because it's always a logical option."

T: I think that reasonability is good for the aff. I think good ground is good enough ground and sometimes debate should be a little hard for the neg. Most things that seem to be too broad should be housed with the aff and not the neg. I think we should bear in mind that we craft broad topics to allow some aff flexibility

Kritiks: I think that debate should be a model for education (and as such we as a community need to determine the "curriculum" that is best) and for representation and language Ks they often run from topic specific education. Topic specific Ks that turn and/or solve ALL parts of the aff are better. I grant the aff a lot of leeway on “K doesn’t remedy “x” advantage and that outweighs” if the neg is not good and explicit about it. I also grant the aff a lot of leeway about why short term extinction claims should come before questions of the K structural impacts.

Framework: As I said above I think that many Ks dodge topic education but in most cases I think almost all frameworks are a race to the middle. Neg gets to question assumptions of the aff, aff gets to weigh advantages. There is almost nothing that annoys me more than bad framework debates. If you do not defend that the hypothetical enactment of your plan by the USFG is a good idea, I am not a good judge for you. We change topics for a reason and I think that "curriculum" I'd like to "teach" in rounds is about policies that the USFG should enact.

Any other (specific) questions…just ask and I’ll be happy to answer