Policy:

I'm okay with any kind of argument from Ks to Theory to DAs, I'm not fussy. Though I do have a history of not finding Topicality arguments particularly compelling unless they're well-ran and the case really is untopical.

I'm good with speed. I think it's strategic for you to make the tags a bit clearer or slower, but do what you will.

I'll weigh the round however you tell/convince me to, but my default is just standard Utilitarian, and caring about real, in-round abuse over the hypothetical worlds of Aff and Neg.

LD:

I care about the Value and Criterion debate, and I think you should too. I'm going to weigh the round however you convince me to weigh the round, and this can be a huge strategic advantage to whoever wins this point.

I'm good with speed. I think it's strategic for you to make the tags a bit clearer or slower, but do what you will.

Public Forum:

I'm paying a lot of attention to the flow and to the warrants of the arguments; I'm not a "speaking skills" style judge. (Unless you're rude or something, but that's a different issue). If you're using framework and bring it up in your final speech, make sure you explain why it gets you an advantage or why it's relevant.

4 Year High School Policy Debater and 2 time NFL National Qualifier in late outrounds.

My experience is mostly with Policy arguments on the Affirmative and negative. I have plenty of experience answering and judging K's but I was never that deep in the Kritikal literature myself so you will want to make sure you explain it well.

I will evaluate the round based on the flow - do what you do best. I love a good theory debate.

Make sure to slow down on your tags, particularly if I'm not on the email chain - I do still believe this is a speech activity and you have to actually read the cards - speed is fine but make sure you're actually intelligible.

Any questions? Ask.

Brookings High School, 2016

Harvard, 2020

Round in the education topic: 0

At it's heart, I think policy debate is an educational activity meant to both foster better researchers, thinkers, speakers, and critical thinkers. Through this view, I think that discussion is best facilitated when both teams come ready and happy to debate the topic at hand, and in a way that promotes fairness and the best academic discourse about the best policy choice.

I consider myself relatively traditional when it comes to how I view an ideal policy round, so that overall can be a guiding principal when you are wondering what to read in front of me.

I value reasonable arguments more - large impacts are important, but often the ability to solve them/their likelihood is very low. Therefore, I value an impact that has a much greater chance of been solved/happening. However, with that note, teams should make an impact calc in order to get me to explain why their interpretation of magnitude, probability, and timeframe are taken into account.

Speed-reading

I don't really care for speed-reading. By all means you can talk fast, but I want to be able to hear every word of every card. The cards you pick should be important enough and worthy enough to read at an audible speed. If I can't hear the text of the card, I will probably not flow it.

Ks

In most cases, I would really prefer that a round free of Ks. That being said, I will flow them. If you want to have a chance that I will vote for it, make sure it is clear, make sure that it links well to the affirmative.

Aff Ks/Performance Affs

You came into the round knowing you were supposed to affirm the resolution, so I expect as much. The negative can justly argue that an affirmative should follow this rule in order to have a productive and educational debate.

Inherency

I love inherency, but most because it is neglected in most modern affirmative cases. I will vote neg on inherency if an affirmative team fails to provide an appropriate barrier to the plan happening in the status quo. Inherency is also really poorly understood in the debate community, so I appreciate a good inherency debate that helps highlight the the line between the affirmative and the negative ground.

Disads

Disadvantages are always a solid idea, but the more specific the better, of course, so keep that in mind. In general, each story of the DA should be started in the 2NC. You can add on impacts on the same impact story in the 2NC/1NR, but it is quite abusive to start a new impact story in the 2NC/1NR.

Theory

I will listen to theory if there is a reason for it in the round. I usually prefer non-theory related arguments, but I believe that theory is important to bring up in cases of abuse and/or to ensure that fair rules of debate are being followed in the round.

Counterplans

I think counterplans can be a great strategy, but I am not a fan of conditionality or stealing the affirmative plan text (PICs).

Topicality

I will vote on topicality, but I need to hear it debated well.