TL;DRread arguments, dont be racist.

CX Paradigm:

I evaluate debate as a game of offense and defense, other general things: Im good with speed but i obviously prefer whats easiest to flow. For chains Hochisaac646@gmail.com (pls dont ask me to use speech drop)

NOTE: If your doc has your analyticals on it you should send it to me, even if your sending a version without them in the chain.

Topicallity:Run it!! if you think the aff or a function of the aff isnt topical than make the argument, im all about testing the topciallity of the plan but some if your T shell is more of a "husk" in that it dosent have standards or terminalized voters than its kindve a non-starter for me like if your T shell is like "thats key to [X Da links] and [Y kind of CP's] voter for fairness and education" thats not really an argument granted if you flesh this stuf out in the block than Idrc. Unles the aff tells me otherwise i default to competing interps. NOTE: if youre a novice and im judging you at a NDCA packet tournament I will probably not vote on T. Non T args like SPEC args are cool but i think the fact theyre not based in the resoloution makes me more aff biased on that question, now granted if the aff plan is just the the resoloution and theres a hyperspecifc action the aff is doing thats not reflected in the plan then im persuaded by them.

CP's:Theyre great! but I have my limitations: process CP's that dont result in the aff, micro PIC's, and CP's with like 10+ planks im a little iffy on. Other than that im very open to all counterplans.

CP specifics:Every CP is "illigetimate" if you make the argument and im persuaded by theory but on certain questions of CP theory i have opinons like 50 state fiat im very split on this question I think who i favor on this debate is dependent upon the round like if the neg reads 6 advocacies that are all condo and one of them is 50 states than 50 state fiat is probably a voter if the neg is just reading the states CP and a politics DA than idc about 50 state fiat. Im persuaded by PIC's bad if the PIC is super small like '[The aff] minus anyone named greg' but if its a mechanism PIC than probably not. Process CP's are bad, not like in a theory sense i just dont think theyre that good but im open to Process CP's bad.Permsare a great tool for the aff, PDB, time frame perms (somtimes), and even lie perms are okay. Severance perms are not great but i dont default to being Anti-severance, i think its even better if the aff can provide some definitions that prove a perm isnt severance. lastly this "perm do the aff then the CP on any other issue" dosent make sense to me strategically or logically but go for it if you want.

DA's:Not much for me to say here, i find i comprehend most if not all DA stories so even really complex ones im okay with. Politics DA's are awseome especially if you have an up-to-date unique scenario. if youre aff dont plan spike a DA, I probably wont flow it.

K's:Here are the lit im well read in or understand well: Marxism, Fem IR theory, Heidegger (but you shouldnt read him hes racist), kroker, baudrillard, zizek, and spanos. I understand K vs the aff and K affs vs the K well i am pretty aff biased at the FW level but i think the neg has good answers to these arguments typically so it dosent matter.

Other gripe: Debaters LOOVVVEE taglines, so much they forget that below them is warrants, i prefer very warrant centered debate rather than tagline dump vs tagline dump but alass i will adjudicate the round either way. Please do evidence comaring.