I'll make this relatively short:

I'll vote on about anything

OFF:

Framing must be explained and given in the 1AC or 1NC.

DA: need to have link-level. I tend to prefer "real world" impacts over existential impacts, Uniqueness is not required for linear disadvantages and shouldn't be your only a/t.

CP: have to have a net benefit over the AFF and be mutually exclusive to be a voter. No multiple worlds theory.

Topicality and Theory: need standards and voters along with proven abuse to be a voter. Condo theory won't be a voter unless the CP is actually dropped proving abuse. Specification arguments need a reason for being weighed such as no enforcement or funding stops solvency.

K: I would prefer framing to be brought up in the 1NC along with impact and alt. The alt should be the main voter of the K and is what I'll vote on.

ON:

Inherency: Inherency in most cases is implied and is not specifically required in the 1ac for me.

Solvency: Aff solvency is guaranteed unless contested in round.

Adv: I would like impact calc at some point in the round to weigh the impacts of the world of the aff vs. neg.

Should be about all, if you have any other questions ask me.

If you have any questions email me: samuel.houston915@gmail.com

This will be a very long paradigm. Just debate how you would normally debate and it will work out best for you. if you don't understand anything in this paradigm just ask me to clarify.

General paradigm: I'm tab default gameplayer. I will vote for literally anything that you tell me to vote for. I have experience in both KDC and DCI styles of debate. I like both of them and you can run both of them without worrying about me, not understanding.

Speed: I'm cool with spreading, but if the other team specifically asks you do not spread and you ignore the request. It will affect how I vote for you in the round. It's also just kind of a jerk move... so don't.

Speaks: There are a number of ways in which you can raise and secure speaks. The most obvious way is to make fun anecdotes and jokes during your speech. I have a terrible attention span so if you can make it more interesting I will probably pay more attention to your speech. Also, there seems to be a high-brow atmosphere around most debate rounds, and that kind of annoys me. So I really don't care if you swear, or if you talk like an actual human being.

Cross-examination: You can do either closed or open cx. I think both are fantastically fun, but it is annoying to me when people make arguments in cx so don't do that. in my opinion, cx is not binding, but if you make an abuse argument I'll listen to it.

General Pet Peeves: Here is a list of general pet peeves I have about debate. I in no way expect you to read or do all of these things.

• When people go way over time for speeches or cx
• if you make analytical arguments in a constructive and you don't put them on the doc.
• If you have said all you needed to say in the round but keep repeating the same thing over and over. I will not dock your speaks because you have thirty seconds left in your speech, please just sit down.
• when people claim they broke the rules in speech. When they very clearly did not.
• If you do not clearly roadmap and signpost
• if you do not label the DA/CP/K on the document, it takes literally 5 seconds to specify the DA. just do it.

Email: vlad.peters24@mcpherson.com

tldr: Game Is Game

For Novice. Just make me laugh and you'll win. For the love of god act like you somewhat want to be here or add any kind of personality. Please make me laugh by adding jokes.

First I'd like to start off by saying don't be jerks or disrespectful to anybody, It can and will become a voting issue. But you probably know that schpeel.

At heart I'm a gameplayer and will vote on whatever you tell me to vote in the round. If one team drops a piece of evidence and the other doesn't but egregiously lies about the evidence (pls dont lie about evidence) I will be forced to pref the wrong interp of the evidence as it is the only one in the round. To simplify my paradigm down it could more easily be "Game is game". Tell me what to vote on.

On topicality args, I am of the belief that you do not have to prove abuse in round for me to vote. If you prove that their plan is not functioning with what the resolution specifies and tell me to vote on it, I will vote on it. For example if a plan this year is deficit spending and you prove that deficit spending is not "fiscal redistribution", I do not care if you have case args too, I will not punish you for being good debaters and doing research. Of course I will also vote on abuse args. But I'm not a stickler about what is topical, if something is reasonably topical and its proven in round I will vote on it. If you can prove something is not resolutional I will probably vote on it.

On CP. CPs are legit and whatnot. I believe that you don't neccesarily need a net benefit if you can prove that your CP solves better than the plan (assuming there is no perm) idc I'll vote for it. Imma be real ill prolly never vote for a states cp, get good. Obviously if its uncontested or really well argued I'll vote on it. Once again, game is game. But usually its such a bad arg.

On DA. DAs are really the meat and potatoes of debate for me. I buy generic links if you convince me of a reason why they should apply. I believe the best way of beating a DA is going straight for a link, so if you prove you don't link nothing else matters on the DA flow. So if you clearly prove you don't link, I straight up no longer care about the rest of any of the args on the DA and you don't have to extend anything else on it if you really don't link. On the flip side if a really awful link is dropped on the DA, even if it doesn't apply I'm not gonna judge kick the link for you. Just extend the args reasonably and don't drop them. For the neg too you gotta extend everything on the DA flow for me to consider it. All things considered, I love me a good DA.

On K. I am not a super buff on Ks, Explain everything clearly on K. Treat me like a C student.That means for both sides. K lit can be very self indulgent and can pontificate for too long upon itself. It doesn't have to be in the 1NC but everywhere else explain all the args on the K and why I should be voting on them, although an explanation in the 1NC would be nice. This is one of the few times where (in a poor debate with no analytics, all debate should have analytics) just reading cards won't cut it on K. I'm not going to say you personally have to believe the K to run it, game is game. I am a big fan of utopia args, a lot of alts are all like "If you vote on this ballot, you'll save the world" I buy that kind of arg when the aff is acting as a policy maker, but not when the neg is using this ballot as a way to save the non post-fiat world. If you are going to say that my ballot will stop capitalism please make your alt actually have some kind of depth and steps that we would take to end capitalism. Not a big fan of "Change the space of debate" kind of alts, because god knows this ballot won't change a damn thing. But I'll still vote on it if argued properly. At heart I believe we should be here to debate the res, and if the best way of ending societal harm is taking down capitalism, so be it. But some Ks just get ridiculous, I'll still vote for them but may err aff when the ENTIRE round comes down to a queer desire K. But once again refer to the quote that has been repeated. Game is game.

On T for K affs. I believe K affs should be somewhat within the space of the resolution to provide predictable ground for the neg, once again debate is a game that should be able to be played by both sides. So if you run T as the neg ofc the aff doesn't have to be traditionally topical like a non K aff. But when you run T give me some kind of DA or impact to the loss of reasonable ground by the neg to be able to play the game of debate on an equal ground with the aff. I do not care how awesome you believe your K aff is, the neg should be able to debate too and blindsiding them with something that has nothing to do with the rez is an arg. Be real, you're not going to change the world with your K aff, I will vote for it, but you won't change the world. So the neg should have ground to debate your aff.