Laczko,+Scott

 I'm still figuring out my paradigm but below are my basic beliefs about debate. To get a better understanding of what my values are or what i look for I should start by saying that I have been heavily influenced by Sue and Jason Peterson and Theresa Perry. If my philo is confusing i suggest you look there for additional information the reason you read the philo- Framework and non topical aff's - i believe that you should affirm the resolution. I love a good framework debate specifically when it is well carded. the community bashes on the clash of civs debate but as a competitor they were probably my favorite to have. I think that the framework should have it's own built in topicality but additionally that a different topicality is worth the time investment. topical version of the crazy aff is very compelling to me. stolen from Sue's philo: i** f you are going to "use the topic as a starting point" on the affirmative instead of actually defending implementation of your plan, I'm probably not going to be your favorite judge. ** on the aff against a K team - I am believer that if you know you are going against a performance or crazy K that preempting framework is a good idea. debating what the best interpretation for what my ballot is a must. If their isn't a debate about this i'll default to the aff being able to weigh their impacts. K's- holy shit batman if your link is solely based off a link of omission you are pretty screwed. i think links of omission debates are the largest waste of time. Linking to the status quo is also problematic for me links should come off what the aff does not to what the squo is. alternative solvency needs to be explained so that it makes sense. why is rejecting the plan necessary what does it actually do. T's - go for it i'm down. i default to competing interpretation and don't like to vote on potential abuse <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; vertical-align: baseline;">C/p and DA: always a good 2nr decision. I really enjoy listening to nuanced DA's. c/p with a solid internal net benefit are also underutilized. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; vertical-align: baseline;">case: 2a's hate talking about their case in the 2ac. a good 1nc strategy will have a large case debate ready to ruin some days. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; vertical-align: baseline;">theory: should always be where it applies. however i'm pretty persuaded by reject the argument and not the team