My fundamental maxim is that debate is a game.
(This does not mean that I arbitrarily make decisions in a non-serious fashion. Rather, debate is governed by rules that are applied in a uniformed way. For example, the rule that I ought to evaluate the claims of the debaters based on their technical function within the round rather than the truth of the argument presented should be applied universally ((with the exceptions to this rule described below)). HOWEVER, what is great about debate is that these rules can be debated. I default that conditionality, as a rule for the debate space, is good but I am open to arguments that argue that some other type of standard would be better. Below merely describes the rules that I bring into evaluating a debate. Tab does not denote judging ex nihilo, rather, every neutral position carries with it certain assumptions that constitute that conception of neutral.)
Hard tech over truth (the only claims I gut check are offensive claims)
Good with speed
Run whatever you want
On theory, while everything is debatable and can be won, I do have positions that I will default on. Condo is good, speed is good, T is good, Cps are good, ect.
In the absents of a framing debate I default to "Util" to break the tie. I.e. I will vote for an extinction claim over a "lower" magnitude impact like a war that will result in 1000 deaths. This is not to say that I am a policy maker that prefers one form of debate over another, but rather, weighing bodies seems to me the closest I can get to judge objectivity by sidestepping any bias or convictions I may have to the contrary.
I seek to find an out with the least amount of judge intervention.
T- your standards are your internal links and your voters are your impacts. Its not a question of a high or low threshold on T, but rather that you tell a complete argument. Perhaps its unorthodox, but your interp is your uniqueness, your violation is your link, your standards are your internal links, and you voters are your impacts. To win T you need win 1. The other team violates your interp, 2. that your interp has an internal link to a voter 3. that your voter is apriori; similar to a disad you need to win that 1. The other team links 2. the link causes the impact 3. the impact is bad. ( if you win that your disad leads to an extinction impact you dont need to argue that extinction is bad if they concede its bad, similarly, if the other team concede that fairness is an apriori voter you dont need to argue that fairness is apriori).
Speaks: Organization and making the right game decisions are weighed heavily for speaks. I also enjoy a good cx period which are exceptionally rare.
Please ask any question you want/need before the round. Email me if you need something answered before the round and Ill try to get back to as soon as possible.
I did policy in high school and do parli @ UT Tyler.