Villiger 39 St Josephs University

2018 — PA/US

Kenan Anderson Paradigm

NOTE FOR VILLIGER: I did a lot of traditional debate at MN States and NSDA so I'm totally down for that. I think traditional debate can be just as interesting, but talking slow and being more formal isn't an excuse for shoddy logic or bad evidence. The flip side is if you're running circuit stuff here make sure you're willing to explain it to kids who aren't as experienced.

LOGISTICS: start an email chain plz. kenan.s.anderson@gmail.com also if you're one of those hip new kids who read DAs on case DON'T it's confusing and bad for both of us. Anything with a link chain should be an off case

Short Version: Go like 60% speed, I flow on paper and do not backflow or look at speech docs unless their is an evidence challenge. I won't vote on arguments I don't understand or don't catch if you're going too fast. so high theory or complex ID politics K's are risky and if you read them EXPLAIN it basic terms. LARP was mostly my thing. Not a fan of petty theory. I think Non-T affs tend to need better explanations for why they should win. I don't know a lot about phil.

Long Version: I debated for 4 years at Apple Valley highschool in Minnesota. I debated on the circuit my last three years and qualified to TOC my senior year. I'm now a student at NYU.

CX: CX is important, but I think I have a lower tolerance for shady, dodgy, or annoying CX habits. 9/10 debaters know what their opponent is trying to ask and just dodge the question. That doesn't impress me as a judge and will earn you low speaks. Don't hide in CX answer questions.

Speed: I debated on the circuit but I was HORRIBLE at flowing speed in part because debaters are super unclear. You seriously should slow down a noticeable amount if I'm your judge because unlike when I was a competitior I won't flow off your speech doc. And I won't go back to look at it if I don't understand the K or whatever. If I don't understand it when you read it, I'm not going to let your cards win the round for you after the 2AR.

Kritiks: I read a fair amount of soft left kritiks my senior year. I never read, but got fairly familiar with kritiks such as Wilderson, black nihilism, ableism, anthro. I've never heard a habeas viscus kritik I understood (not saying it can't be done, it just hasn't yet). Open and have a base level knowledge of model minority but definitely will need a little more heavy explanation on it. Same goes for high theory kritiks. EXPLAIN THE LINKS AND THE ALT.

phil: was never really my thing beyond reading util and answering Kant, so you'll need to explain more (side note: did run a testimony aff at camp once that i thought was really good)

Theory/T: I almost never read this my senior year. While I think there are times for theory, A) prove real abuse B) be slower/clearer than other ares C) weigh. I'm going to quote Chetan Hertzig's paradigm here because I think he sums up my views well "I will vote on theory that is actually justified (as in, you couldn't have answered the position without it, or there was something about the opponent's strategy that made it impossible for you to win without theory). Is that subjective? You bet. Is there a brightline? Probably not. Don't like this view? Don't pref me."

Truth testing: never liked it or understood it????

Non-Topical Affs: I prefer critical discussion of the topic. I wrote one of these but never read it in high school. I faced these a lot my senior year, and never read T or FWK. That being said I think a lot of non-topical affs don't provide a clear enough argument as for why to vote for them. I think there are also lots of good arguments for why non-topical affs aren't good. BUT PLEASE IF YOU READ T ACTUALLY MAKE ARGUMENTS INTERACTING WITH THE AFF AND SPECIFICALLY THE ROB. Overall I think these debates are often really hard to resolve so please spend extra time articulating why you should get the ballot even if you don't defend the resolution. (Side note: I've seen an increasing trend of affs that try to find the slimmest link to the topic, while obviously not really being topical, I don't understand this or see the advantage) In short, simply reading arguments in the AC that are true, doesn't win you the ballot, you need to explain what voting for the affirmative does.

LARP: Yes. Do it. My favorite. Things to know, I probably know more about politics than you, and am an econ major. I think good counterplans and PICs are the way to win basically every round. (I read PICs all the time)

Disclosure: True arg, disclose, and be reasonable about it. Winning that you shouldn't have to disclose will usually be an uphill battle with me.

Tricks: don't. ever. please.

Robert Coven Paradigm

To Whom It May Concern--

I am a former debater (from the “Golden Age” of debate) who delved into all styles of Speech and Debate, including but not limited to:

Policy

Congress

Extemp

Oratory

In evaluating rounds, I prefer arguments that are coherent and well-articulated. I will NOT entertain spreading, will not join your email chain, nor will I vote on arguments that are irrelevant and/or not explained.

Namely, I will not credit straw-manned or caricatured arguments. Don’t read arguments that you don’t understand or can’t explain in layman’s terms. If you can thoroughly explain the theories of Kant, Lacan, etc. well and their implications IN A 6 MINUTE SPEECH WITHOUT SPREADING, more power to you. However, be warned that my threshold for explanation is very high, regardless of how complicated the argument is. I’m willing to bet that if you can explain these philosophies in 6 minutes, you probably just don’t understand it. Keep in mind that most actual philosophers would spin in their graves over the incoherence present in most of these “phil” debates.


I will not evaluate ahistorical claims, even if they are “dropped” by your opponent.

As for argument preferences, anything goes. Plans, moral skepticism, theory, kritiks, or whatever newfangled arguments kids these days like to read. I will vote on anything as long as it has a warrant, a clear explanation, and weighing. You don’t have to be topical, but like any argument, I will vote on topicality if the issue is won.

Don’t leave it to me to weigh your arguments.

Speaker points: I will dock you for ad hominems, poor explanations, spreading, and more!

I will reward word economy, eloquence, wit, and argument innovation.

I do not disclose during the round.

Above all, treat your opponents and judges with respect.

Good luck :)

Audrey Cree Paradigm

Parent of 5 year public forum debater. Between 30-40 rounds experience at local CFL tournaments in the Washington, D.C. area. Prefers slow, persuasive manner of traditional public forum debate. The emphasis should be on argument development through the round, effective refutation of case positions on both sides of the resolution, with effective crystalized final focus and summary speeches. Excessive card checks are not tolerated as it is expected that all debaters are cutting and reading cards using the highest of ethics in debate rounds. Excessive road mapping before each speech will also not be tolerated. Please help the judge and tournament stay on time. No Spreading!

Tiffany Dacheux Paradigm

Forensics Team coach for Dallastown since 2014

Speed and Decorum:

Send me your case. My email is tadacheux@gmail.com I cannot overemphasize the necessity of doing this – it will help keep me focused, and generally just make me happier. (Please…and thank you!) If its an organized case, that’s just even better!

Spreading…I can follow it when I have the speech DOC, at least a skeletal outline (preferably written), or clear signposts which are different in emphasis/tone. Real talk time: this is key if you will be spreading in rebuttal.

I really do not care if you sit, stand, or perform yoga poses while you speak. I vaguely care that you remain in the room, and do not want you to touch me/your opponent but other than that pick your own position.

I don't time the debate or prep time, therefore you should. If need me to time, please tell me. Flex prep is fine if all debaters in the round agree.

I’d rather not touch…well…ANYONE, so can we NOT shake hands?

Debate:

Arguments that are obviously racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic, Anti-Semitic, etc. are not OK. (Read: you will lose if you run them.)

I do not like theory. I find it unnecessarily complicated and usually designed to make debate inaccessible (especially to those who are likely already crowded out of this forum in some other way). Please don't run it unless there you see literally NO OTHER WAY to respond to your opponent's arguments. Even then, I may not evaluate it the way you want or expect. If you planning to run dense or tricky theory, you should find a different judge.

You have an absolute obligation to articulate your arguments. Even if I’m familiar with the literature or whatever that you might be referencing I *try* to avoid filling in any gaps.

Signposting = GOOD! Flipping back and forth from AFF flow to NEG flow then back to AFF Flow to NEG Flow....BAD.... VERY, VERY, VERY BAD!

Tricks = no. Thanks.

Above all, strive to make sense. I do not prefer any “style” of debate or any particular kind of argument over another. Similarly, there isn’t much that is “off limits” (other than that which is listed above…pay attention to that). Regardless of what you run, if your case relies on me to connect the dots for you or if it is a literal mess of crappily cut and equally crappily organized evidence sans warrants, you probably be sad at the end of the round.

Bridget Doherty Paradigm

I have been judging for 3 years mostly focused on LD. I've come to really enjoy it and look forward to hearing from you.

What I am looking for:

Content is king for me: Having a good, sound argument where you clearly understand the facts/cards/reasoning of your aff and/or neg and can clearly explain them to those who do not is what I am looking for.

I am also looking for an organized thought process and adherence to the LD framework. Your actions should almost always be taking it back to your value and core contentions.

I understand Spreading is an approved technique, but if you are going so fast I can't understand your case, you can't win the argument, no matter how good it is. Speed is acceptable, as long as I can understand what you are saying. I am a professional communicator for a major healthcare company, and if I counseled my executive leader to speak super fast I would not have a job (and neither would the executive).

If you are going so fast I can't understand, I will give one warning. Again, the content of your argument and an organized framework will go much farther with me than getting lots of information/facts and figures on the table.

And I just learned this: I am NOT a fan of Kritik. Do at your own peril.

It is important that everyone learn from this experience, so my comments will be broken into what you did well and opportunities for improvement.

Lastly, I appreciate all the hard work you put into this and am constantly impressed by students who have the courage to do this and their amazing skills. Thank you for doing this.

Hong Guo Paradigm

Not Submitted

Justin Harbour Paradigm

I have been judging and coaching Lincoln Douglas debate for 2 years. As an academic, I have researched judging philosophies. Based on what I’ve learned and my interpretation of the unique aspects of Lincoln Douglas debate, the following describes my judging paradigm.

Lincoln Douglas debate is a clash of values. The value represents a means to a world “as it should be.” Thus, the debater that upholds their value best will likely win the round. Here are some specific points that I believe are important:

  1. Analysis – The debater will clearly present a logical argument and also effectively refute the opponent’s case.
  2. Proof – There should be a sufficient quantity and quality of evidence to support the case. More evidence is not always better. The contentions should also link back to the value.
  3. Organization - There should be a logical and orderly presentation throughout the round.
  4. Refutation/ Clash – The better debater will demonstrate the ability to critically analyze the opponent’s arguments and develop clear and logical responses with effective use of evidence and examples.
  5. Delivery – The speech must be understandable, interesting, and persuasive. An LD debater should demonstrate effective oral communication skills including effective reading; clear and understandable delivery; persuasive vocal argumentation; presence; and eye contact. “Spreading” during rounds is discouraged for this reason – in opposition to overwhelming your opponent with speed that renders you unintelligible, a superior ability to identify and present the best arguments concisely is a much better representation of analytical acumen and the intent of LD debate.

Good luck to all competitors. I look forward to observing, critiquing, and judging your rounds.

Best,

JH

Elizabeth Henning Paradigm

I'm a traditional judge with 4 years of experience as a high school LD debater.

LD:

As the mechanism by which you weigh the round, your value should be the main focus of the clash and all contentions should link back to the value framework. If your contentions do not link back to your value structure or your criterion does not weigh the value, you will lose. Developing effective communication and critical thinking skills is the main goal of forensics, and I expect to see argumentation based not only on statistics but solid logic and speech that reflects careful thought of the debate at hand. If run a K, theory, or spread, I will not vote for you.

PF:

You should have some kind of framework for your case. Although not as important as in an LD round, you should still be able to tell me why your arguments are significant, and more importantly, why they outweigh your opponents' arguments. Simply listing statistics is not sufficient to win the round, I expect to see logical warrants for each number.

Melissa Jimenez Paradigm

Not Submitted

Kelly Koob Paradigm

Not Submitted

Felix Li Paradigm

8 rounds

Email is lifelix@seas.upenn.edu

I did four years of LD debate in high school, on both the local and national circuit, so I'm well-versed in both progressive and traditional arguments.

However, while I won't punish a debater for doing so, I would prefer that they only run progressive arguments if their opponent also understands them; otherwise there's no real engagement.

If you spread, I just ask that you flash or send your case to your opponent if they request it. I'm fine with flex-prep, but let me know you want it before your opponent starts their prep.

I find that many debaters don't adequately engage with their opponent's framework - remember to directly attack them on the line-by-line if that's strategically right (and it is, more often than people think it is)

I will disclose at the end of a round if both debaters agree to it.

Weighing is important - for substance, for K's, and for theory.

RJ Pellicciotta Paradigm

I am the Director of Forensics and head LD coach at Cary Academy. I would describe myself as a neo-traditionalist. I follow a traditional approach to LD with some notable exceptions. I am a typical traditionalist in that I prefer a debate centered on a common sense, reasonable, good faith interpretation of the resolution; and I believe speakers should emphasize effective communication and practice the habits of fine public speaking during the debate. I differ from many traditionalists in that I am not a fan of the value premise and criterion, and that I do not believe that LD arguments have to be based on broad philosophical concepts, but rather should be as specific to the particular resolution as possible. If you want to win my ballot you should focus on developing a clear position and showing how it is superior to the position put forth by your opponent. You should not attempt to make more arguments than your opponent can respond to so that you can extend them in rebuttal. In my opinion most rounds are not resolved by appeals to authority. The original analysis and synthesis of the debater is vastly more important to me than cards. For further insight on my views please consult these following articles I have written for the Rostrum:http://debate.uvm.edu/NFL/rostrumlib/ld%20Pellicciotta0202.pdf,

https://debate.uvm.edu/NFL/rostrumlib/Luong%20RJ%20PresumptionNov'00.pdf

Morgan Rowe Paradigm

8 rounds

First and foremost, know that I am not a debate judge. I've judged my share of PF and a bit of LD, and I have a general understanding on how to judge both events (so I'm not a lay judge insofar as that I do have an idea of what I'm doing). Prefer traditional arguments.

Because I enjoy good debate, here are my prferences:

- Come prepared with all of you cards organized. I don't want to sit there and waste time while you fish around to find a specific card.

- Speed: I'm not gonna lie, I like to flow but that also means that spreading will make it so that I can't include as much info on the flow. In terms of speed, I suggest that you speak quickly but don't spread.

- Please signpost and lay out a roadmap, especially in your rebuttal speeches.

- I will time you, but I expect you to time yourself and your opponents.

- I appreciate good clash over a good point. It makes filling out my ballot much easier when I can link arguments together.

- PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE weigh the round. I cannot stress how it important it is for you to lay this out in your rebuttal speeches.

My email is morganelizabeth@temple.edu if you have anymore questions.

Bailey Rung Paradigm

Updated 12.12.2018

Hey y'all, I'm Bailey. I'm the LD coach at Ridge HS (NJ), and help out with CX as well. I competed successfully in NFA-LD (1-person policy) & limited preps @ Western Kentucky University, and in a multitude of formats for Blaine HS (MN). I'll be graduating in 2019 with a B.A. in Communications Studies. I also minor in Phil.

tl:dr/general -

I consider my self as tab as possible, and familiar with the conventions of all debate events beside PF. I judge around ~100 rounds of LD a year, ~25 rounds of CX a year, and occasionally find myself watching Congress and Extemp.

Treat others as you would want them to treat you. Stand up for yourself and others when others violate that expectation. I'll do the same. Forensics should be accessible and comfortable.

Performance skills matter and boost speaks/determine ranks, but of course it's different what that looks like in each event. Speed is fine, but be cognizant of your opponent, other judges, and which event you are actually competing in (Policy is policy, local LD is not circuit LD, and congress & extemp require public address skills). If you can't/don't want to stand, go for it.

Strategic execution (tech) always comes first, but any page can only be won with superior warrant analysis (truth) under an offense/defense paradigm. After that, weigh everything. Weigh dropped arguments, don't just extend them. While clearly dropped arguments can be devastating, if it's simply a poorly constructed argument then it probably won't factor heavily for me.

Don't advocate for fascist, racist, sexually violent, ableist, or otherwise bigoted arguments. I don't want to hear death good, skep, or religion. Other than that, you do you - Mearsheimer to Moten, I'll listen - but it's still your prerogative to properly articulate your argument. T/Theory is fine.

I read/went for the following most often (in order): big advantages & topic DAs, politics, impacts turns, T/Theory, advantage & agent CPs, post-structuralism, cap, a range of environment literature. I'm academically experienced (in order of depth) on semiotics, discourse theory, normative ethics, Marxist theory, post-structuralism, and existentialism. I pursue a personal reading interest in IR theory, criminal justice, environmental issues, and the milieu of national politics.

Event specific -

CX --

Aff

Specificity of plan text and quality of solvency evidence matter to me. If the neg ultimately defends the status quo but doesn't have good case args, it's likely the neg will lose. It's surprising I have to say these things, but it happens more often than one might expect.

Kritikal and Performance affs are fine, topical or not. This does not imply I won't vote on framework if won by the neg. That, however, does not imply i automatically vote neg on framework every time. I hold the advocacy to the same scrutiny I would for a plan.

I enjoy framing & weighing out of the 1AC.

Disads

I most often see DA debate as a question of who controls the direction of the link offense. Obviously weighing is a must, but I put a lot of stock into this - that or impact turns. Solely defensive strategies, even with impact framing tend to be non-persuasive. Some terminal defense exists (like bill already passed, etc.) - definitely an exception.

I went for politics A LOT, and really enjoy these debates.

Counterplans

I'm open to most strategies.

It's pretty uncommon for me to vote on condo bad. I'm more open to positions like PICs or States bad.

Presumption doesn't necessarily flip to the aff - specifically if the 2NR has good case arguments with DA/Turns.

CP solvency/text should be at least as detailed than the 1AC's, if not more. That said, the CP doesn't necessarily need to solve 100% - whether on probability or scope, if CP has a high risk of solving the most of the aff that can be sufficient if the DA/Turns outweigh.

Kritiks

I enjoy good K debates the same as any other strategy. As a judge I end up seeing this debate a lot, and have no real preferences for or against any given strand of literature or in-round execution.

I'm most familiar with literature stemming from the continental branch of philosophy. Some of my personal favorite authors include Baudrillard, Bookchin, Butler, Deleuze, Debord, Foucault, Luxembourg, Marx, Morton, & Zizek. That said, the majority of K debates I judge tend to be questions of identity and security (respectively) - which I also enjoy. I feel comfortable evaluating most anything.

I don't think the neg must absolutely go for/win the alternative, so long as the neg has good framing. Really, though, the neg should always be winning framing.

I generally find pure theory to be unpersuasive as an aff response. Perms are usually the best route, so are researched defenses of contemporary policy-making.

I've been finding lately that really close K debates have come down to who better presents empirical examples of the link and alt to contextualize theoretical warrants.

T/Theory

I particularly enjoy good topicality debates. I default to competing interps & jurisdiction voters.

I like theory debate so long as it relates to a Plan/CP/Alt/RoB text, or another theory text (a good RVI is rare but persuasive). In other words, ASPEC is cool - bracket theory is meh. Strike me if you're going to complain about your opponent's attire.

I'm neutral when it comes to FW debates - I'll vote for performance/sans-plan K affs as much as I vote for Framework. I generally place a high value on arguments over the academic & personal value of one's scholarship. Fairness is important, but I see these debates as ultimately a question of who wins (in the context of the round) that their educational/pedagogical praxis is preferable.

Clear & specific wording of interpretations is critical. Same with contextualized violations. If you're going to go for it, make it clean.

Great 2NRs/2ARs go all-in, and put voting issues at the top of the speech.

I don't like abstract reasonability arguments - my likeliness to vote for reasonability is entirely based on either the strength of a legitimate I-meet or the counter-interp's ability to resolve a substantial portion of the neg standards.

Outside of framework, I generally think fairness comes first.

Misc.

Please use speechdrop. Prep stops when everything is put in your document. Don't steal prep.

Flex prep is fine.

CX is binding. I pay attention to CX. Excellent CX will boost your speaks.

Always weigh everything. Excellent weighing will boost your speaks.

Always collapse the debate. Excellent collapses will boost your speaks.

If the round is left unresolved, I will intervene and do my own comparison. I will be as fair as I can do each side and will let you know if this happens.

I'll always disclose unless told otherwise. More than happy to answer questions.

Bonus speaks for 'Good' Anarchism, DeDev, & Extraterrestrials arguments.

LD --

Progressive

You can really just check my CX paradigm for most of my substantive preferences. Here are some event specific thoughts:

Aff -

>Please justify your framework.

>I have a low threshold for 1AR/2AR extensions given the time, but warrants are still a must. I hate tag fights more than anything. 2AR impact weighing is fine.

>spending ~2:00 extending the aff card-by-card will likely lose you the round and tank your speaks. Part of the game is parsimony and efficiency. Have an overview for a page and do line-by-line.

>I will evaluate and occasionally vote on 1AR theory, but the stupider the argument, the less likely I am to vote on it. Things like CP theory, and RVIs against super abusive T/Theory NCs are infinitely better than, say "pre- or post-fiat, but not both" or "my opponent is wearing a tie". Even when 1ar theory is good (rare), there's usually not enough time to develop and win.

Neg -

> The 1NC should have framework comparison - waiting until the NR rarely pays off. 2NR impact weighing is fine.

> Please collapse in the NR - don't go for everything. Winning/high speaks NRs usually go all in on T/Theory or the K, or go for case and/or CP with a DA. Leaving yourself multiple outs is smart, but this should be done in reference to whatever you go for ('case or CP' or 'turns or DA') - not wildly extending everything in the NC.

>80% of my rounds end up being Policy-making or K debates, and I don't have any event specific thoughts here. K framing work should be done in the NC, though this seems obvious.

>'Phil' debate: I think ethics debates are super fun, and really enjoy the literature. I will evaluate these debates, though I have two thoughts: (1) Just because it's LD doesn't mean I have to/will automatically default to ethical theory over policy-making or the K (2) extending 5-second blips you label 'a prioris' without warrants and spewing jargon without explanation is not a winning strategy - understand your ethic and interact it.

> Again, T/Theory is fine, but the dumber the argument, the less likely I am to vote on it. I enjoy actual T debates over words in the res, and theory debates over writing of the plan (ASPEC, Vagueness, etc.). I can't stand 'formal dress theory' or 'bracket theory' - do some prep and make real arguments.

> I'm slightly more likely to vote on condo bad in LD than CX. Same thing with reasonability - though this is all relative.

Traditional

Do your thing - I'm super tab, keep a good flow, and am fairly well read. I've invested a lot of time into this style of the event as a coach and really enjoy it. I don't have many thoughts here - I'd check my tl:dr section for general debate things.

> Please justify your framework - it's shocking the proportion of debaters who don't or do so poorly.

> Warrant and weigh - the earlier the better.

> Don't take excessive prep for early speeches (NC/1AR).

> If you want to kick framework and go for case, go for it. These debates are often the most fun.

Extemp --

Congress --

Alexandra Sencer Paradigm

Criterion only.

No spreading. If I cannot hear and flow the argument, it doesn't exist. 

Vote off framework. 

No disclosure.

No oral critiques. 

I believe there are worse things than extinction. 

Rachel Watson Paradigm

Pronouns: Use anything except she/her. Ask for others' pronouns in-round. I personally default to they/them until I'm told otherwise.

For Bronx: This is the first policy tournament I've judged on this topic, don't assume I have policy topic knowledge.

I started competing in Lincoln-Douglas debate in 2008. Three years later, I taught myself policy and took on a more involved role in tutoring my teammates and helping both LD and policy students prepare for tournaments. I debated at Central Oklahoma from 2015-16, and if you're any gender other than a cis man or person of color thinking about that program or Wake Forest, ask me about why I left. I've been involved in the activity for eleven years now. I'm currently a graduate student at the University of Pennsylvania and the debate coach at Holy Ghost Prep.

If you have an email chain (and this isn't a CFL tournament) add me: r.erinwatson@gmail.com

Feel free to email me about other stuff too, if you feel unsafe in round, if you want to know more about my paradigm, ask about arguments, get a better understanding of the RFD, etc.

The good stuff: My paradigm is driven first and foremost by the fact that debate is about education. Game-y debate strategies do have a lot of educational value, but I expect debaters to come to a round willing to learn about their opponents’ arguments, both policy and non-traditional debate approaches.

Because of this, part of the round that’s important to me is the way debaters treat each other. Respect your partner and your opponents. Respect every judge, too, even if you've decided you don't need that ballot to win the panel.

Don’t alter your argumentation just for my benefit; I’ll listen to any kind of argument you like to run and have a deep appreciation for well thought out and defended positions of any kind.

For LD Debaters: I enjoy both progressive and traditional LD, but give me a stasis point if you hit an opponent with the opposite style. You need to give me some way to compare the different models of debate and evaluate the clash in the round, otherwise I'm left with two different kinds of impacts and no way to weigh them if you don't do it for me.

General Argumentation:

I prefer debates that are more than claims. Debaters should be prepared to provide warrants/explanations for the arguments they’re making, and arguments should be well-developed.

All the below was written with policy in mind, but it applies to progressive LD as well.

Affs:

I love a really technical policy aff as much as I do a complicated kritikal or performance approach. Run the argument you're the most comfortable with and prepared for.

Topicality and Theory:

I’m plenty happy to vote on topicality and theory arguments if debaters are willing to go all in and can defend that one model of debate or of the topic provides more education/learning opportunities. However, if the negative provides an overly exclusionary interpretation on Framework, they are going to have to work a lot harder to convince me that an exclusionary based model of debate is good.

Counterplans/Kritiks:

I generally prefer negative strategies that don’t contain a performative contradiction, like reading counterplans that link to a Kritik of the aff. Other than that, please try to make it clear in round the ways in which your Kritik or counterplan function differently from the affirmative. Counterplans need a net benefit, and Kritik debaters should be prepared for impact framing arguments, especially in a round with a policy team. From the aff, be prepared to explain how a perm functions to achieve the net benefit/not link to the Kritik.

I’m happy to answer debater's questions on specific issues/arguments prior to the round. I will also respond to emails after the fact if you have questions about my decisions.