Abby Long - Harding

n/a

---

Jared Dockery - Harding

n/a

---

Lindsay Walton - Harding

n/a

---

Melissa Beasley - CBU

n/a

---

Michael Marse - CBU

I adopt a real-world policy-maker paradigm, which means:

• I give leeway to either side to point out deliberate obfuscation and/or spread as a procedural voter.
• I give leeway to the affirmative to argue that critiques/kritiks should be treated as disadvantages.
• I believe the resolution has primacy, so unless the affirmative rejects the resolution, the negative has no ground to argue for the resolution by offering a topical counterplan.
• Value resolutions should aim for clarity with arguments used in support of a side.  Values can not, generally, become facts through argument.
• Fact resolutions should rarely be argued since the required objective verification is difficult with no pre-written evidence allowed.
• Affirmatives in a policy round should provide enough detail to allow the negative to make arguments, but are not required to provide absolute certainty.  So, an expensive plan should generally state what the source of funding should be, or which types of programs will be cut to pay for the plan.  Specific amounts and line items are not required.

I flow arguments, not responses. So, a claim of "no link" with no grounds will be ignored.

Ties go to the best arguments, and in the case of argumentation being close, the win will go to the best (most effective in a real-world scenario) delivery style.

---

Rylan Smith - Harding

n/a

---

Sidney Davies - Harding

n/a

---

Vera Mishchenko - CBU

n/a

---