Experience: 

Policy Coach @ Ralston High School

3 years policy debate @ Millard West High School (2007-2010)

State Champion in Policy Debate (2010)

Nebraska North District Champion in Policy Debate (2010)

General: Debate the arguments that you enjoy and debate them well. Speed & tag-team cross-ex are fine.

Argument Preferences:

Affirmative: Engage with the topic. This doesn't necessarily mean you need to be "topical."

Disads: Run good internal links and be able to explain them.

Kritiks: Don't link to your own discourse links, I'm willing to vote you down on perf-con. Author experience with Heidegger, Foucault, Baudrillard, Camus. Links of omission are rarely good. 

T/FW: High threshold for developing procedural arguments. I really like them, and happy to vote on them, but both teams need to put in the time to address the nuances of the argument. Won't vote on undeveloped Role-of-the-ballot arguments.

I debated policy at Omaha Westside from 2009-2012. This is my 5th year coaching at Millard North.

Policy Paradigm

My national circuit experience is largely with critical debate. I'm more familiar with the identity side of things than postmodern, but I've gotten to a point where I feel comfortable understanding the majority of explanations of high theory arguments, even if a detail is lost here or there.

I think debates should emphasize debating and clash. Therefore, I am not a good judge for clash avoidant strategies and mental gymnastic competitions that proliferate underdeveloped arguments.

I prefer a combination of evidence and analysis over evidence dumps. Application of arguments, direct responses and comparative analysis should start before the final speech in front of me.

RoBs are often arbitrary and self-serving. I like them when they function as a point of clash that is essentially impact comparison between competing political approaches, ideologies, methods, etc. I don't like them when people think they win because the other team "dropped" the RoB because they didn't have a competing text despite the other team being ahead on the substance of the debate (links, impacts, solvency, whatever). If that's the case I'll probably vote for the team winning the substance.

I do not vote on cheap shots. Arguments are at least a claim and a warrant.


Disads, CPs, Ks, T – Default to offense/defense within reason. Complete defense is possible but highly unlikely. Turns case arguments get away with too much because silly internal links and magic alternatives aren’t challenged.

I’ve been less active this year so I’m not familiar with the truth(ier) side of topic disads and affs. Spin supported by evidence will go far. This will be the most disorienting on T because case lists will just be random case names to me, so emphasizing the quality of cases and debates for x and y reason will be especially important.


Framework – 

Part A – General Thoughts

I have a slight aff side bias in the relatively few framework debates I’ve judged, but I think that has more to do with the average framework debater being conceptually behind the average k aff debater in framework debates than anything else. 

That being said, I think the neg block on framework is the most commonly mediocre block in debate. They’re overly scripted, non-responsive, full of blippy jargony arguments that aren’t contextualized to the aff, and the 2NCs and 2NRs are almost identical to the speeches given in other debates against wildly different critical affs. It’s about as bad as when less experienced teams are learning to run 1 off Ks and read essays worth of blocks while doing no contextualized analysis. 

I understand that framework is run to mitigate the neg prep pressure against the ballooning number of critical affs, but I think having somewhat specific case defense and adapting the block and 2NR direction according to the critical aff being faced is necessary. There's a lot of easily available quality evidence that is being underutilized.

I like critical affs, but framework can be necessary depending on team size, experience level and coaching expertise. The presence of framework also pressures critical affs to remain honest so they actually defend something worth debating. I think it’s a good argument when run well.

Part B – When I'm Judging

I think there are two main ways for the neg to collapse down when running framework. There’s the “policy-oriented debates produce skills necessary to anti-oppression politics, their form of debate does the opposite” 2NRs and the “debate is a game, limits explosion tanks predictability and denies core negative ground, competitive equity outweighs” 2NRs.

I think the former is more persuasive against affs that are heavily against state engagement, which makes a viable t version of the aff unlikely. Anti-state engagement affs also have access to sweeping impact turns that I think require mitigation outside of t version of the aff and ssd because they undermine competitive equity framing, which makes case defense and policy skills turns case arguments useful in the 2NR. 

I think the latter is better vs. more soft-left affs that aren’t particularly anti-state but instead advocate a consciousness shift or some jargony jazz as a prerequisite to effective state action. It’s too easy for those affs to win they don’t suspend state engagement and only make engagement better through reckoning with x messed up thing, which opens up more persuasive t version of the aff claims and reasons why ssd leaves enough space in the neg’s model of debate to heavily mitigate aff offense.

For me, figuring out in cross-x of the 1AC how the aff relates to the state is vital, as many 1ACs can be read either way.

Neg blocks should not drop the 2AC overview that lists disads and uses case to turn framework. This is equivalent to dropping the block’s disad turns case overview. Debaters can win without answering it but why would they put themselves in that position?

I think the neg would benefit from explaining the t version of the aff similar to a counterplan, explaining how it solves individual parts of the aff or overlaps with the area of scholarship and then using offense elsewhere on framework to outweigh the specific “solvency deficits.” 

LD Paradigm

I have little experience with national circuit LD. I’ve mostly judged locally. My national circuit experience in policy is mostly on the critical side, but I am more than comfortable with a good disad, cp case debate. 

I can recognize some LD jargon but I don’t know what they actually mean. I don’t know what skep-triggers are or the permissibility vs presumption debate, and so on. I’m also not familiar with a lot of the moral theory. That being said, I can flow, follow and evaluate coherent arguments. This means there will be a higher threshold to effective explanation because I won’t be able to fill in the blanks or conceptually complete arguments for debaters because I don’t know what the best version of the arguments they’re making are.

I default to offense/defense within reason.

I’ve noticed I have a slight neg side bias when judging LD. I think this is mostly due to 1ARs having trouble and/or 2ARs collapsing to new arguments or unjustifiably new spins on previous arguments. 1ARs seem inefficient on case, especially when dealing with low quality arguments.

Generally speaking, remember that overadapting is not a good idea. You do you and I'll try my best to keep up.

Speed - Yes. Slow down when reading a flurry of analytics and don’t sacrifice clarity.

Theory – I'm accustomed to theory being read to discourage shadiness that would prevent effective debate, not as a mental gymnastics competition to avoid clash and substance.

1AR and 2NR restarts sound as vacuous as paragraph theory. 

If evaluating a theory debate I’ll first look to whether fairness or education was determined as more important (or determine who won that debate is there was disagreement) then isolate each team’s links to it. Not all forms of education and fairness are created equal. Weigh critical vs policy education, topic specific education, cost-benefit analysis, structural in round fairness vs fairness in respect to oppression, etc. Some people would categorize those as just links to education or fairness. Regardless, invest time in them. Comparative analysis is everything. 

Critical – Cool. Lack of an effective explanation of the method is the most common mistake.

Last Updated 3/5/20

Background: I debated for three years at Millard West High School in Omaha, NE. I was a 2A/1N all three years, and I primarily ran soft left/middle of the road affs. I recently graduated from Columbia, and I currently judge most often for CDL.

I use she/her pronouns.

TL;DR:

• Do what you do best. I'm willing to vote on almost anything you put in front of me as long as it's executed well.
• Yes, I would like to be on the email chain - mcunliffe97@gmail.com. You should also feel free to email me before or after the round if you have any questions for me.
• Tech > truth, in most cases.
• A dropped argument is not a true argument without an impact and a warrant. I still need to know what the perm means even if the negative didn't respond.
• I will only read your evidence after the round if there is an indict of evidence that has not been resolved within the debate, or if the debate is muddled to the point that evidence quality is a deciding factor. I will always default to your analysis, and the criticisms you make of your opponent's evidence in round.
• Smart, well-applied historical examples and analytics > unexplained shallow cards
• K affs and Ks are totally okay with me - I am most likely to vote you up if you still provide some form of topic education and if you can clearly explain how your method or performance a) resolves at least some of the harms raised in the 1AC and b) is preferable to roleplaying as the USFG.
• I'm very amenable to framework, and I'm most persuaded by claims that stable stasis points are net better for debate, and that having to advocate for concrete action and engage with the state on the aff, even from an antagonistic position, is a good form of education.
• I think both K affs and framework usually suffer most from failing to get off their blocks and not specifically discussing the benefits/harms of the 1AC for debate.
• I won't vote for any argument that claims racism, sexism, homophobia, or transphobia are good. Making discriminatory comments toward your opponent is always an automatic loss and a talk with your coach and/or the head of the tournament.

Logistics:

• I don't take prep for flashing/sending the e-mail.
• I'm fine with speed, as long as you're clear. Please slow down a bit for theory and overviews - I don't need you to read them conversationally, but it's easier for me to flow if you're reading them at tag speed rather than card speed.
• Card clipping = 0 speaks for you and and an automatic loss. Video/audio evidence needs to be provided to me to prove any suspected card clipping. If a false accusation is made, the accusing team receives 0 speaks and an automatic loss.
• Please don't steal prep. I'll give you a warning once, and if I catch you after that, I'll start the timer without telling you.
• Tag team CX is fine, but speaks will be docked if one partner is speaking excessively over the other.
• Being sassy and/or aggressive is great. Being an asshole is not. It will show in your speaks and my obvious irritation with you during the RFD.
• If there are any other accommodations that I can make to help make the debate more comfortable or safe for you, please let me know. Debate should be more fun than it is stressful, and I am willing to do whatever I can to facilitate that. Feel free to reach out via e-mail if you don't feel comfortable telling me in front of opponents/observers/etc.

Specific Arguments

K affs

• I really like K affs when they're executed well. Two things are going to make me more likely to vote up your advocacy:
• 1) Be at least germane to the topic. I believe that part of the value of debate comes in exploring different topics from year to year, however you choose to do that. I'm willing to vote on affs that choose to ignore the topic if a well thought-out and well-defended defense of debate outside of the topic is provided, but I think it weakens your response to the negative's claims that their education and ground have been lost.
• 2) Advocate for a method or form of performance that resolves at least some of the harms you identify in the 1AC. I am frustrated by K affs that are able to diagnose problems in debate or American society but fail to provide any kind of mechanism to resolve any of those problems, and I am persuaded by claims that affs without any real method fail to create good ground or clash. Focus on the particular skills and education gained from acting as activists/scholars/artists and the ways that those benefits could not be gained from a USFG aff, and you're good with me.
• I'm generally not very persuaded by the idea that my ballot is going to start a movement, or that the results of this specific round are key to broader external social change.
• I only vote on role of the ballots if there's a clear reason given to me by the affirmative to prefer the ROTB to my default of voting for the team that debated best. Even if an ROTB is technically conceded, I think a fairly significant time investment in later speeches is still required to convince me that your framing of the ballot is preferable.
• Being aff vs. framework - I have no real predisposition in these debates. I think a lot of K affs suffer from being too general in their 2AC - the 1AC usually has very compelling anti-state arguments and specific defenses of the aff method, so the more your 2AC draws from the specifics of your 1AC and the less you rely on generic "state/roleplaying bad" args, the better off you are with me.
• If you attempt to perm framework in any way or claim that your aff will effect change on the state eventually, I need a specific explanation of what the aff does with regard to changing the state externally that could not be done internally with a plan.
• Performance of any kind is cool with me - I'm most impressed by teams that make their performance an integral part of the aff, and continue to incorporate it past the 1AC.

Framework

• "Ks/K affs are cheating and make people quit debate" forms of framework are not persuasive to me, and I am very persuaded by aff claims of silencing/exclusion against this argument.
• Framework as a methods debate (i.e. "advocating for the USFG is a better way to solve for the aff's impacts") is a way more interesting and persuasive argument for me. I really appreciate framework that is specifically tailored to the aff - creative TVAs, relevant historical examples, and making your framework specific to the current political climate are all good ways to get my ballot.
• I generally believe that the only terminal impacts to framework are fairness and education. Loss of ground is not an impact by itself - tell me what specific kinds of education are lost by allowing the aff in the 2NR and how those forms of education limit our ability to engage as citizens in the future.

Ks

• Totally down for them. I'm most familiar with neolib and identity-based Ks, particularly those to do with gender. I would say that in general high-theory philosophy is not my area of expertise, but I'm fine with hearing those kinds of arguments. No matter how much I know about what you're reading, I default to your analysis. I'm not here to fill in the gaps for you.
• I want to hear a K specific to the aff. Links like "they use the state" and links of omission are not compelling to me. I love hearing lines or cards of the 1AC referenced and very specific link articulations.
• Buzz words are not persuasive. Straight quoting a lot of your authors and their jargon is probably going to confuse me. Instead, slow down a bit in the block and give me an explanation of the thesis of the K in layperson terms. I am always super impressed by people who can translate exceptionally academic authors into something that's easy to understand and relevant in the context of the aff.

Topicality

• Treat T like a DA for me and it's great - ground is not an impact in and of itself. Instead, tell me what education is lost and why that education is critical to our development as debaters/future advocates for stuff. T version of the aff is great and should always be in the neg block if possible.
• I always prefer topicality arguments that are rooted in some kind of substantial in-round abuse and I think it makes it easier for the neg to win an impact in that case, but I'm open to any T argument that claims that the aff hurts debate in some way. I don't think that potential abuse is a voting issue.
• Ks of T are fine but I think they're stronger when you provide some kind of we meet or counter interp for how I should view the debate.

Theory

• I think theory is nearly always a reason to reject the argument and not the team, unless it's a condo argument or really significant abuse can be proven.
• I'm not a huge fan of blatantly conflicting advocacies. This does not make condo an automatic voter for me, and I think there are clever ways to show how on-face contradictory arguments can work together. However, I think it is a pretty lazy neg strategy, and it makes me much more sympathetic to the aff if they choose to perm or justify severing reps against one of your positions.
• If you want to go for theory in front of me, invest significant time in it in the later rebuttals (at least 3 and a half minutes in the last rebuttal), and get off your blocks. Make sure you're finding examples of abuse within the round, and, like with topicality, essentially treating it as a DA.

CPs

• I didn't run a ton of CPs in high school, so if it's highly technical or has a ton of planks, please take the time to explain any tricky stuff you want to do. Totally cool with them as long as they're explained well.
• Please slow down on your CP text so I actually know what you're advocating for.
• I'm not predisposed one way or the other about cheating CPs, but I can be persuaded by aff theory, especially if there's obvious in-round abuse.

DAs

• I'm fine with anything you want to do here. I really enjoy specific DAs, and I think the more generic you are, the easier it is for the aff to win. However, I think that even the most generic DAs can become specific if good link analysis and impact comparison is made between the aff and the DA.
• The more illogical your politics DA, the less I'm going to like it. Be knowledgeable, reference specific senators and representatives, understand and talk about the current political climate, and I'll be into it. Internal link chains are usually super weak for politics, and aff teams that exploit this, even just with analytics, have a way easier time against these arguments with me.

General stuff:

· I should be fine with whatever kritik you run. I might not have the best knowledge of it so make sure to explain well, but my background knowledge should be passable.

· I’m fine with speed, just be clear.

· Debates with more clash usually end with more speaker points for both sides.

Policy:
First of all, these are just my biases. I won't actively vote you down based on this no matter what you say or something like that, I'm just trying to make my leanings a little more open. You can go against these things and still win, just be aware that it might be harder to do so.

· I think that topicality is an important issue that at least warrants discussion in some instances; however it may be difficult to win against an actively non-topical team because all levels of the argument need to be won for T to be won.

· I’ll have a hard time voting for traditional condo bad theory against one conditional advocacy, but multiple contradictory worlds are probably not okay.

· Counterplans are generally fine, but I am partial to abuse arguments against Plan inclusive Counterplans, or PICs, because they generally seem to be a thinly veiled way for the neg to frame the aff out of the round. If there is sufficient literature base for and against the PIC, I will probably give it more leeway than say the ‘the’ PIC.

NFA-LD:

Pretty much the same as policy. One difference is the rules. I think the fact that they are written down is important so it may be a bit harder to win Topicality bad, and stuff like that.

Also, for whatever reason framework positions seem to be a lot more important in this format (probably because of the time constraints being different). I like framework with a purpose, i.e. framework designed to get you something by forcing your opponent not to do some sort of abuse that makes your arguments on case or for disads better.

On speed: it's in the written rules, so it's important. I think that the bright line argument is important, especially if one side is only going a little fast, but I think in most cases you can tell the difference. I went fast when I debated, but that's not to say I won't ever vote for this argument (although I may never hear it so who can tell).

LD
I debated policy in high school, so I don't have perfect experience in LD. I have read most of the traditional ethical philosophers, or at the very least know the gist of what they say (mostly Rousseau and Hobbes here), along with a lot of the newer, more postmodern stuff. The one thing I don't have a lot of knowledge of is the weird framework positions. I should be able to follow what you argue, and I'll try my utmost to evaluate the way the debaters tell me too. I like to look to the value-criterion debate for impact analysis a lot.

On voting:
I’ve found that I tend to like more technical arguments as well as impact calculus when it comes to deciding a debate. What I mean by that is when you explain exactly how you win at the end of the round and why your impacts are important, I am more liable to vote for that argument than your opponent. Basically, I tend to lean towards well-structured dispassionate rebuttal speeches as opposed to passionate disorganized rebuttals because I find it easier to justify my ballots.

That should be all the technical stuff that people need to know. Just have fun in round and try to be nice to each other. I think that the debaters should always be the ones to define the rounds, so just have fun and do what you want to do and I'll try to go along with it. I'd definitely appreciate something new, because I think that creative arguments are what makes this activity fun, and what makes it stand out. As such, I'll probably be giving you more speaks if your arguments come across as innovative and polished. Grounding your arguments in reality (even if it's a very non-standard view of reality) effectively is a reliable way to seem more polished.

**Policy Philosophy**

Small update 12/7/2016

I officially hate T debates on this year's topic, specifically the QPQ/Not QPQ debate. Go for T at your own risk.

The rest Updated 10/28/2015

About me: I’ve been coaching policy since 2008. I was at Omaha-Westside 2008-2012, and Millard North 2012-Present.

The short version: I’ll evaluate the debate the way the debaters tell me to. I don’t think debate should be any one thing. The beauty of policy is that it’s constantly changing to suit the will of the debaters. I care significantly more about the educational outcomes of debate than pure gamesmanship. If you’re debating in a style that you’re passionate about (policy-making included), I’m a good judge for you so long as you can justify what you’re doing. Some of my teams run straight-up policy arguments, others don’t read plans.

The argument biases below aren’t set in stone. I try my best to evaluate the debate according to the arguments made in the round, not my predispositions.

Speed: I can flow whatever speed you toss at me as long as you’re clear. That being said, I’d prefer if you slowed down about 15% so that I have a little more time to process what you’re saying. Frankly, I enjoy debates more that are a little slower—but debates are about the debaters, so don’t pay too much attention to that.

If I can’t understand what you’re saying I’ll tell you to be clear once or twice. After that you're on your own.

Topicality: I'm probably not  the best judge for T if the aff is about a core controversy of the topic. 

I've generally voted neg on topicality in debates where the negative has provided a clear, limiting interpretation of the topic. The aff was in good shape when they gave warrants behind breadth over depth and/or talked about the quality of the ground the differing limits provide (limits should be about the quantity and quality of cases). I default to reasonability if neither side says a word about it, but I defer to the flow and usually end up deciding based on competing interpretations.

Theory: It’s your burden to prove rejecting the argument doesn’t solve your objections. You'll have a tough time convincing me to vote on dropped cheap shots. Limited conditionality, topical CPs, and functional PICs are probably good. Counterplans that include the possibility of doing the entire plan are probably bad.

Kritiks: Do your thing. I’m pretty well informed on most arguments, but you can’t be sure I know your personal favorite. Specificity makes for better debating.

DAs/CPs: Sure, go for it. I’m getting less thrilled by politics debates as time goes on, but I’ll evaluate it fairly. Case-specific PIC/DA combos are probably my favorite strategies.

Framework: Mike Baxter-Kauf says it best: "There are really 2 different arguments that people lump under the tag “framework.” One is a question of how we should think in response to a given question: these are defenses of pragmatism, realism, empiricism, etc. These are legitimate questions which are a focus of any intelligent response to a criticism. The other is “they ran an argument with big words so we should get to not answer it and still win.” I hate this argument ,like whoa, do I hate this argument. Don’t get me wrong, I vote for it, but I hate doing it and the the threshold for rejecting it is pretty low. You are way better off answering the thesis of the argument and defending your approach to whatever the question is (YOUR epistemology, YOUR ontology, etc.)"

No Plan/Alternative Styles: I'm friendly to this when it's not used as a method of avoiding clash. If you’re passionate about what you’re doing, I want to watch you debate. If you try to be shifty and 'no link' out of positions that clearly link to your advocacy, don't be surprised when I give the other team more credibility on their framework arguments. It will also probably hurt your speaker points. That being said, I am increasingly wary of how intellectually limiting traditional interpretations of the resolution are. If you're germane to the topic and present a debatable advocacy, I'm interested in what you have to say.

Other stuff:

When I read evidence after the round, it's generally to get more context for the arguments made in the debate. I won’t give you credit for warrants that weren’t explained in-round.

I definitely value 'spin' over evidence.

I won’t judge-kick a counterplan and evaluate the status quo unless you explicitly make that an argument in the round.

Clipping cards is a serious offense. Get caught and you’ll lose the round with zero speaks.

Experience: I debated policy for four years at Sioux Falls Washington in SD. During that time, my partner(s) and I were State Champions, took 4th place at Nationals in 2012, and 9th place in 2013. I was also the 14th speaker in the nation my senior year. I now actively judge policy debate in NE and SD. On the Aff, I generally ran policy Aff. On the Neg, I was known for closing for DA/Case, DA/CP/Case, or Topicality.

General Paradigm: Know that I will listen to anything. I am interested in hearing the arguments that you enjoy debating the most. However, if no one in the round tells me how to evaluate, I default to a policymaking framework. Tied into all of this, I care most about warrants and evidence comparison. I prefer to hear well-developed arguments over a spread of warrantless claims and bad evidence. I’m down with speed though.

I care deeply about impact calculus when evaluating rounds. Therefore, I need specificity and comparisons when you are addressing these sort of framing concerns. This is especially important during the final speeches. I do not want to just hear the buzzwords magnitude, probability, and time frame. Extrapolate upon your unique framing.

On specific arguments...

Topicality: When done well, topicality can be a very effective tool. The problem is that many debaters do not know how to debate topicality well. If you’re going to close for T, I prefer that you spend your entire 2NR on the issue. I prefer specific, in-round abuse scenarios, but will vote on potential abuse if well explained. I also generally default to a framework of competing interpretations, valuing teams that can best explicate why their interpretation is valid. Note that I prefer T over generic theory arguments.

Theory: I will evaluate theory, but will say that I do not prefer these debates. Often I just hear blocks read with no real clash and violations that are woefully generic. Additionally, I don’t appreciate really blippy theory arguments early in the round that become round-changing in the rebuttals. Give your theory arguments substance from the beginning. If you’re going to run theory, make sure that it is grounded in what is happening in the round. Again, I prefer in-round abuse scenarios to potential abuse.

CP: I am definitely open to listening to CPs. That being said, make sure that your CP solves part, if not all, of the case advantages. Solvency deficit arguments from the Aff go far for me. It’s the burden of the Neg team to prove CP solvency.

DAs: I am a big fan of disadvantages. I do not have a problem with generic DAs, but prefer the links to be as specific as possible. However, I understand that there is not a lot of literature for diverse DAs this year, and will take that into account. I am always skeptical of internal link scenarios, and the Neg has to do more work here.

Kritiks: As someone who hardly ever ran critical arguments in high school, I will say that I am not as well-versed in K literature as I would like to be. However, in my time judging I have heard a fair number of performance Affs and Ks on the Neg. I am open to hearing these interesting debates, but just require some more warranting/overviews. As such, I will need more explanations of K arguments that might be less commonly run or unique. In particular, I want a focus on the link and alt stories. Most of the time I am highly skeptical of alternatives. If you don’t understand the evidence yourself, don’t run the K in front of me.  

Case: I am a big fan of case debate. I think that it is very important that the Affirmative team takes advantage of their 1AC and utilizes it throughout the round and across flows. There’s a reason you read it for 8 minutes. On the flip side, I really appreciate Negative teams that focus on debating the specifics of advantages and case solvency. You can really bolster your Negative strategy by taking out components of case.

At the end of the day, I want you to debate the round that you want most. As long as you are polite, engaged, and strategic, we should have a fun round!

2023 update: I have not judged in a couple years, so going a bit slower is best for me as well as explaining any jargon relevant to the topic.

email: gradywiedeman@gmail.com

I do not need to be on the email chain if it's an LD round, I would like to be on the email chain if it's a policy round. I have no preferences on standing/sitting.

Background: I debated for four years of policy debate (Norfolk, NE), debated NFA-LD for the University of Nebraska (2 years), and previously the policy coach at Lincoln High (NE).

Affirmative: Do what you want, I am not fundamentally opposed to nontraditional affirmatives.

Negative: Run what you feel comfortable with. I think playing to your strengths makes for a better and more exciting round. I am a sucker for theory debates but ultimately want to see what debate you enjoy.

Kritiks: The only particular I have is that the alternative needs to be explained well. If I don't understand your alternative, I'm going to have a hard time voting off it.

General: I try my best to vote based off of what I hear in round. I have particular opinions about debate, but I will do my best to judge based off the round rather than my own preferences. I prefer analysis over card dumping. The more contextualized analysis is usually the more compelling to me. In general, I like it when you're genuine with your arguments. I want you to like them and I want to be able to like them. You spent a lot of time cutting these positions, do them justice.

One thing I particularly don't like (and will have a hard time voting on) are quick and dirty theory shots to win the round. An example might be an observation that says you, by definition, win the round or something. If that's what you want me to vote on, a clean extension is not sufficient. You need to invest time into arguments that you want me to vote on, these observations/theory points included. I will not vote on a theory pot-shot that you put a combined 45 seconds into. I need analysis as to why you want me to vote on that thing.