Please include me in email chains , I prefer email chains if available if you use email the prep stops when your done prepping, If you are flashing prep stops when the flash drive leaves the computer.

 I am a college policy debater taking a year off this year. I run majority kritical and performance based arguments. But i am comfortable judging anything. I am a very flow oriented judge and I like a variety of arguments please dont be sexist or racist.

Novice and jv 

if you don’t finish your speech you forfeit the debate 

TL;DR:

Coached at The Galloway School (2013-2021); Limitedly debated for Emory (2004-2008)

She/Her

Please add me to the email chain: cdespathy@gallowayschool.org

Slow down a bit, do lots of signposting, write my ballot with explicit impact calc.

Debate has brought a lot of joy to my life and I love the intellectual playground it creates. Please be respectful of debate and of debaters. Hold yourself to a high degree of integrity. Like I tell my own squad: Have fun and LEARN.

More info:

Debate is not my full-time job and I don't dedicate any time to it anymore. I have had limited to no judging on this topic and don't participate in camps, but I will try really hard to be attentive and to follow the speech. It might help to watch my face/body language to make sure I'm following along with you. You may need to slow down a bit and do extra signposting with me. Limit using acronyms; I don't research the topic and am unfamiliar with a lot of topic-specific stuff especially at the start of the season. Even if you are right or win the debate, if I couldn't follow along you didn't do your burden to adapt to your judge then you might lose. I'm old and slow :)

I enjoy a straight forward case, CP, and/or DA debate, I understand T enough to hear it in the 2NR, and I will listen to Kritiks in the 2NR if that's your best strategy. I'm not very well versed in Kritik literature since I was a policy-oriented/traditional debater. I have a hard time knowing how to manage identity-rooted and/or performative arguments in the policy framework I operate in. I like to hear comparative impact calculus at the end of the round with specifics and explanations. I need 2NR/2AR arguments to have been presented earlier in the round to give them weight. Be strategic; run only as many arguments as it takes to build your case and win the round. Run smart, strategic arguments. Don't cheat.

KRHAMRICK@GMAIL.COM

I've been judging debates for a long time. I prefer listening to debates wherein each team presents and executes a well-researched strategy for winning. The ideological flavor of your arguments matters less to me than how you establish clash with your opponents’ arguments. I am open to most anything, understanding that sometimes “you’ve got to do what you’ve got to do” to win the debate.

At the end of the debate, I vote for the team that defends the superior course of action. My ballot constitutes an endorsement of one course relative to another. To win the debate, the affirmative must prove their course is preferable when compared to the status quo or negative alternatives. That being said, I interpret broadly exactly what constitutes a plan/course of action. An alternative is proven a superior course of action when it is net beneficial compared to the entirety of the plan combined with part or parts of the alternative. Simply solving better than the affirmative is not enough: the alternative must force choice. Likewise, claiming a larger advantage than the affirmative is not enough to prove the alternative competitive. A legitimate permutation is defined as the entirety of the "plan" combined with parts or parts of the alternative. Mere avoidance of potential or "unknown" disadvantages, or a link of omission, is insufficient: the negative must read win a link and impact in order to evaluate the relative merits of the plan and the alternative. The 2AC saying something akin to "Perm - do the plan and all noncompetitive parts of the counterplan/alternative" is merely a template for generating permutation ideas, rather than a permutation in and of itself. It's your job to resolve the link, not mine.

I believe there is an inherent value to the topic/resolution, as the topic serves as the jumping off point for the year's discussion. The words of the topic should be examined as a whole. Ultimately, fairness and ground issues determine how strict an interpretation of the topic that I am willing to endorse. The most limiting interpretation of a topic rarely is the best interpretation of a topic for the purposes of our game. The topic is what it is: merely because the negative wishes the topic to be smaller (or the affirmative wishes it bigger, or worded a different way) does not mean that it should be so. An affirmative has to be at its most topical the first time it is run.

I don’t care about any of your SPEC arguments. The affirmative must use the agent specified in the topic wording; subsets are okay. Neither you nor your partner is the United States federal government. The affirmative is stuck with defending the resolutional statement, however I tend to give the affirmative significant leeway as to how they choose to define/defend it. The affirmative is unlikely to persuade me criticisms of advocacy of USFG action should be dismissed as irrelevant to an evaluation of policy efficacy. I believe that switch-side debating is good.

All theory arguments should be contextualized in terms of the topic and the resultant array of affirmative and negative strategies. Reciprocity is a big deal for me, i.e., more negative flex allows for more aff room to maneuver and vice versa). Conditional, topical, and plan inclusive alternatives are presumptively legitimate. A negative strategy reliant on a process counterplan, consultation counterplan, or a vague alternative produces an environment in which in which I am willing to allow greater maneuverability in terms of what I view as legitimate permutations for the affirmative. I’ve long been skeptical of the efficacy of fifty state uniform fiat. Not acting, i.e., the status quo, always remains an option.

Debate itself is up for interrogation within the confines of the round.

I tend to provide a lot of feedback while judging, verbal and otherwise. If you are not clear, I will not attempt to reconstruct what you said. I tend to privilege the cards identified in the last two rebuttals as establishing the critical nexus points of the debate and will read further for clarification and understanding when I feel it necessary. Reading qualifications for your evidence will be rewarded with more speaker points. Reading longer, more warranted evidence will be rewarded with significantly more consideration in the decision process. Clipping cards is cheating and cardclippers should lose.

I value clash and line-by-line debating. Rarely do I find the massive global last rebuttal overview appealing. Having your opponent's speech document doesn't alleviate the need for you to pay attention to what's actually been said in the debate. Flow and, for god's sake, learn how to efficiently save/jump/email/share your speech document. I generally don't follow the speech doc in real time.

"New affs bad" is dumb; don't waste your time or mine. When debating a new aff, the negative gets maximum flexibility.

I believe that both basic civil rights law as well as basic ethics requires that debaters and judges conduct themselves in rounds in a manner that protects the rights of all participants to an environment free of racial/sexual hostility or harassment.

Best judge philosophies ever written

https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Jaramillo%2C%20Ricardo

https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Forslund%2C%20Eric

http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Matheson%2C%20Calum

Calhoun 2017

University of Pittsburgh 2021

Current School Affiliations - Unionville (2017-)

Put me on the email chain - hku426@gmail.com

1) Everything is debatable. “Either defend it, or don’t say it. Defend everything.”

2) You should frame the debate at the end of the 2NR and 2AR. If you don’t, it will make the debate incredibly frustrating to resolve and inevitably lead to some form of judge intervention.

3) Any specific thoughts I have about debate are my opinions and will not influence the round as much as you think it will. I am a flow-oriented judge so it’s up to you what you do with my time.

4) If you have any questions about college debate or possibly attending the University of Pittsburgh, talk to me after the round

General Gripes about Debate:

First and foremost, stop saying “T not FW.” It’s a waste of your time. Just call it framework because there is no meaningful distinction that you will make that will convince me otherwise.

That being said, framework is incredibly strategic when done correctly and I enjoy being in clash debates. Fairness should be an internal link to education not as an impact in itself. Oftentimes I find explanations of fairness being tautological, however, that does not mean you can’t go for fairness as an impact. This means that your explanation of fairness should be better than usual.

The normative interpretation of fiat is based on a hypothetical implementation of the plan and I default to this interpretation unless told otherwise. Just because this is a normative standard in debate does not mean it should be the sole interpretation of debate.

I am generally unhappy with the trend of teams reading 6/7-minute overviews then leaving 1 minute for the line by line. Engagement is non-negotiable – You have to answer the aff. It is, in fact, harder to answer nuanced criticisms of the aff versus more of your generic K cards so you should take the opportunity to maximize your offense.

Teams should almost never sacrifice their clarity for speed. Being a fast debater means that it should not be the literal speed that matters, but rather the number of arguments clearly communicated to the judge. This is especially true for theory, topicality, and k debates. I don’t have the best hearing so it is in your best interest to slow down.

I’ve been in debate for 5 years now. I started debating on the military withdrawal topic and I’ve debated every year since. I have also debated this debate year, so there’s no need to slow down, I know what the high school topic is this year (surveillance) and I understand everything you’re saying. 

For LD:

Speed (spreading) is fine, a-spec, T, CP, Kritik arguments are fine. See policy arguments below for opinions on T, Ks, etc. I'm pretty open to voting on anything just tell me why you win and the person who does the best debating will win. (Simpson-Jiles 15)

For Policy

Discliamer before you read this philosophy -- read what you were going to read before you read this wiki. I am more interested to hear what you have to say, what you think is strategic, and I prefer to hear you debate how you debate. That's going to make me more happy than whatever is in this wiki.

Philosophy: 

Topicality: T is a voter if you win it, and I view T and framework to be essentially the same thing - as a result I won't say T is never a reverse voter because I do believe that bracketing out important discussions, especially the discussion of race, with T can be bad. I don’t believe that T shouldn’t be under-covered just because you run a clearly topical AFF, but I do believe that the AFF can smartly answer T with an obvious counter interpretation. I’m a logical person and understand definitions both ways, so don’t be afraid to go for T and don’t be afraid if the other team does. T is a very line-by-line debate and I will judge it as such. 

CP: I like to watch this type of debate. This has even been my go-to strat on some topics. When going with a CP, make sure you make the net benefit obvious, whether it’s a DA or internal. I am cool with any CP you can come up with as long as you can defend it as net beneficial, and I am super duper cool with the PIC. I love PICs. Sorry. I think it's strategic, but that doesn't mean I necessarily think that it's fair. Debate it out.

DA/Case: This is my least favorite type of debate. Hate the PTX DA. You know what to do, just properly explain solvency deficits to magnify the DA, or just straight up go for turns on the DA. I really, really look at uniqueness when you’re going for a DA, so make sure it’s up to date and goes your way. 

Ks: I understand and debate Ks. Your K should win a link. If you win a link you often win the debate, often times the link/impact flow is more important than the alternative, although a good alternative debate will make me warm and fuzzy inside. I am fairly familiar with most K literature, I am more familiar with Deleuze as a specific author, ableism foremost, feminism, capitalism, speciesism, "race", and Ks of method. What does this mean? It doesn’t mean that you don’t have to explain the debate to win, it just means that your rebuttals shouldn’t be the generic “this is how X K functions” and should be instead centered around smart analysis of how the K interacts with and wins against the affirmative. AFF, answer the K smartly and don’t forget your 1AC is your biggest form of offense. I do not care how you word your perms, but you need to explain to me HOW your perm functions.

Theory: Tell me what to do with it. Do I reject the argument or the team? Why? If you plan to go for theory, go for theory. Don’t be afraid; I am a judge who votes on theory and who will flow the entirety of the theory debate – I just need to be told what to do once I decide which team is winning the theory flow. 

K AFFs/Performance AFFs: I’ve debated these, I’ve run these, I like these, and you can run these in front of me. Make the question “why vote AFF?” very clear to me, don’t be sketchy about it, and you’re in a good place. I don't care if you have a plantext, I don't care if you don't say anything at all in your 8 minutes, just tell me why I vote for you.

DISCLAIMER – THINGS THAT WILL GET YOUR SPEAKS DOCKED: -- Racist/Sexist/Ableist slurs -- Being rude. This isn’t cute to watch. Prep ends when you say it is over.

Marist, Atlanta, GA (2015-2019, 2020-Present)
Pace Academy, Atlanta GA (2019-2020)
Stratford Academy, Macon GA (2008-2015)
Michigan State University (2004-2008)

Pronouns- She/Her

Please use email chains. Please add me- abby.schirmer@gmail.com.

Short version- You need to read and defend a plan in front of me. I value clarity (in both a strategic and vocal sense) and strategy. A good strategic aff or neg strat will always win out over something haphazardly put together. Impact your arguments, impact them against your opponents arguments (This is just as true with a critical strategy as it is with a DA, CP, Case Strategy). I like to read evidence during the debate. I usually make decisions pretty quickly. Typically I can see the nexus question of the debate clearly by the 2nr/2ar and when (if) its resolved, its resolved. Don't take it personally.

Long Version:
Case Debate- I like specific case debate. Shows you put in the hard work it takes to research and defeat the aff. I will reward hard work if there is solid Internal link debating. I think case specific disads are also pretty good if well thought out and executed. I like impact turn debates. Cleanly executed ones will usually result in a neg ballot -- messy debates, however, will not.

Disads- Defense and offense should be present, especially in a link turn/impact turn debate. You will only win an impact turn debate if you first have defense against their original disad impacts. I'm willing to vote on defense (at least assign a relatively low probability to a DA in the presence of compelling aff defense). Defense wins championships. Impact calc is important. I think this is a debate that should start early (2ac) and shouldn't end until the debate is over. I don't think the U necessarily controls the direction of the link, but can be persuaded it does if told and explained why that true.

K's- Im better for the K now than i have been in years past. That being said, Im better for security/international relations/neolib based ks than i am for race, gender, psycho, baudrillard etc . I tend to find specific Ks (ie specific to the aff's mechanism/advantages etc) the most appealing. If you're going for a K-- 1) please don't expect me to know weird or specific ultra critical jargon... b/c i probably wont. 2) Cheat- I vote on K tricks all the time (aff don't make me do this). 3) Make the link debate as specific as possible and pull examples straight from the aff's evidence and the debate in general 4) I totally geek out for well explained historical examples that prove your link/impact args. I think getting to weigh the aff is a god given right. Role of the ballot should be a question that gets debated out. What does the ballot mean with in your framework. These debates should NOT be happening in the 2NR/2AR-- they should start as early as possible. I think debates about competing methods are fine. I think floating pics are also fine (unless told otherwise). I think epistemology debates are interesting. K debates need some discussion of an impact-- i do not know what it means to say..."the ZERO POINT OF THE Holocaust." I think having an external impact is also good - turning the case alone, or making their impacts inevitable isn't enough. There also needs to be some articulation of what the alternative does... voting neg doesn't mean that your links go away. I will vote on the perm if its articulated well and if its a reason why plan plus alt would overcome any of the link questions. Link defense needs to accompany these debates.

K affs are fine- you have to have a plan. You should defend that plan. Affs who don't will prob lose to framework. A alot.... and with that we come to:

NonTraditional Teams-
If not defending a plan is your thing, I'm not your judge. I think topical plans are good. I think the aff needs to read a topical plan and defend the action of that topical plan. I don't think using the USFG is an endorsement of its racist, sexist, homophobic or ableist ways. I think affs who debate this way tend to leave zero ground for the negative to engage which defeats the entire point of the activity. I am persuaded by T/Framework in these scenarios. I also think if you've made the good faith effort to engage, then you should be rewarded. These arguments make a little more sense on the negative but I am not compelled by arguments that claim: "you didn't talk about it, so you should lose."

CPs- Defending the SQ is a bold strat. Multiple conditional (or dispo/uncondish) CPs are also fine. Condo is probably good, but i can be persuaded otherwise. Consult away- its arbitrary to hate them in light of the fact that everything else is fine. I lean neg on CP theory. Aff's make sure you perm the CP (and all its planks). Im willing to judge kick the CP for you. If i determine that the CP is not competitive, or that its a worse option - the CP will go away and you'll be left with whatever is left (NBs or Solvency turns etc). This is only true if the AFF says nothing to the contrary. (ie. The aff has to tell me NOT to kick the CP - and win that issue in the debate). I WILL NOT VOTE ON NO NEG FIAT. That argument makes me mad. Of course the neg gets fiat. Don't be absurd.

T- I default to offense/defense type framework, but can be persuaded otherwise. Impact your reasons why I should vote neg. You need to have unique offense on T. K's of T are stupid. I think the aff has to run a topical aff, and K-ing that logic is ridiculous. T isn't racist. RVIs are never ever compelling.... ever.

Theory- I tend to lean neg on theory. Condo- Good. More than two then the aff might have a case to make as to why its bad - i've voted aff on Condo, I've voted neg on condo. Its a debate to be had. Any other theory argument I think is categorically a reason to reject the argument and not the team. I can't figure out a reason why if the aff wins international fiat is bad that means the neg loses - i just think that means the CP goes away.

Remember!!! All of this is just a guide for how you chose your args in round. I will vote on most args if they are argued well and have some sort of an impact. Evidence comparison is also good in my book-- its not done enough and i think its one of the most valuable ways to create an ethos of control with in the debate. Perception is everything, especially if you control the spin of the debate. I will read evidence if i need to-- don't volunteer it and don't give me more than i ask for. I love fun debates, i like people who are nice, i like people who are funny... i will reward you with good points if you are both. Be nice to your partner and your opponents. No need to be a jerk for no reason

Updated 1/16/18

Affiliation:

Chattahoochee High School '15

Kennesaw State University '19

Some background:

I debated four years at Chattahoochee. I was a 2N my enitre career so I tend to lean negative on most theory questions and toward the Aff on late breaking debates because of the 1AR.

Debate:

I haven't done any judging on this topic so make sure to be informative, clear and understandable. IF you use jargon I don't know, don't expect me to google it for you. It is really quite simple; if you do the better debating you will win my ballot. I am a very technical debater so dropped arguments unless absurd are almost always treated as the truth. In front of me, try to advocate something if anything. At least make it clear what you believe I am and should vote on. I'm very laid back in round and really anything goes as long as you aren't rude or mean. Most importantly have fun. IF its apparent that you are enjoying yourself throughout the round, it will help your speaks and my willingness to give you my ballot.

College: Senior at University of Georgia (Not debating)
melodysj@uga.edu


I also highly prefer email chains compared to flashing due to the speed and efficiency during rounds!


For LD:
Speed (spreading) is fine, a-spec, T, CP, Kritik arguments are fine. See policy arguments below for opinions on T, Ks, etc. I'm pretty open to voting on anything just tell me why you win and the person who does the best debating will win.

Short Version:

Speed is fine with me. I want to see a good debate, so run whatever YOU are good at. Don't let my opinions discourage you, because honestly I like a little bit of everything. The only arguments I think I have a high threshold for are Theory arguments. If you think this might impact you, please read below. I'm pretty chill in round and enjoy jokes/fun, so don't feel like you can't ask me questions or anything after or just generally have to be uptight around me.

Long Version:

General: MAKE YOUR FRAMEWORK CLEAR PLEASE. I don't take prep for flashing unless you take more than ~30 seconds to flash your speech. THINGS THAT ANNOY ME: Stealing prep, not flowing, arguing with me over my RFD, and saying obviously offensive things (racism, sexism, rude). I will dock speaks for these things. Cross-x: Not sure if this is old fashioned but I think cross-x is more for the debaters than for the judges, so don't feel the need to impress me.... be polite, ask the good/important questions and if you find a hole in their aff/neg make sure to BRING it up in the speech. Not in speech = doesn't count for you.

CP: I love counterplan debate! I usually err neg on counterplan theory, however there are limits to this. I think some process CPs can get pretty complicated and I hate topical CPs. Other than that, you're probably safe running any CP/PIC with me, especially if you can defend it's theoretical viability.

DA/Case: I think the impact analysis needs to be really good in this debate on both sides.PTX is a core DA on every topic so I'm probably not going to vote on PTX Bad Theory.

Ks: I enjoy K's when they are run correctly. I'm fairly familiar with K lit, but that still means I want you to explain the K - not just buzz words!! However, don't feel like you have to spend all your time trying to explain the K to me - I'm most likely familiar with it enough to know what it says. I really want to hear a smart analysis of how the K interacts with the AFF. I think you should make args like K solves/turns case very clear. I also think that not enough teams talk about the alt - you should tell me what it does and why it's important. I really like language K's (ableism, fem, anthro) so if you're running these make sure to explain why language in a debate round/life is important! Also deleuze..... <3

T/Framework: I lean towards competing interpretations and T is always a voter; however T is never a RVI (reverse voting issue i.e. voting aff because aff is topical or voting aff because neg ran T ext...) Make your standards clear and impact your standards. I'm not going to vote for T just because you say the aff is untopical. Explain why your interp/standards are better for the debate and future debates etc.... For affs that are more resolutional / untopical kritik affs, I am willing to not vote on T if you give me a better interpretation/framework on how the topic/policy debate should be. i.e. united states fg would be an immoral, unethical, bad actor in XYZ instances. Just explain it and make sure you give me reasons to perfer your interpretation.

Theory: I have a pretty high threshold for theory arguments. I lean more towards theory as a reason to reject the arg and less toward theory as a reason to reject the team. However, that doesn't mean I will never vote to reject the team. I have I will, especially if they are doing something incredibly unfair (i.e. running new CP in the 2NR, clipping cards) or if they drop it. I would vote on condo if the team runs so many off that it is obviously hurting the debate. I think you should impact it more than just "X is unfair," give me more of a reason to vote down the team than that. I think topic edu and edu in future debates are very important. Education standards are more persuasive to me than fairness standards because although I think debate is game-like, I think the most important part of debate is learning via the game not necessarily winning the game. Also, if you are going to go for a theory argument, you need to dedicate most/all of your speech time on it. It needs to be fleshed out, it needs to be impacted. I hated when judges voted on a 2 second blip on Condo in the 2AR when I was debating, so I'm not going to do that. If they drop Condo - that's great, I'll vote on it, just put the time and impact analysis into it, not just 2 seconds of: they dropped Condo, reject the team. Also random theory arguments like agency cps bad, etc kind of annoy me if they're just a time suck and it seems like something you would never go for.

K affs/performance affs: Like them. FRAMEWORK! Please make your FW/ ROB clear to me. For the neg, PLEASE challenge their framework or the debate will lack very much clash, if you want to run a K against them, you don't have to just agree with their FW - challenge their methods/methodology.

Speaks: Speed is fine, clarity is better, esp on tags. I want to vote on the arguments that make up the majority of your 2AR/2NR so plan those speeches accordingly, if I end up voting for something you spent 2 seconds on in your speech, your speaks will suffer because you should have spent more time on your winning args and fleshed them out. I usually average around a 28.5 and go up or down accordingly.

Judge Philosophy

Name: Lisa Willoughby

Current Affiliation: Midtown High School formerly Henry W. Grady High School

Conflicts: AUDL teams

Debate Experience: 1 year debating High School 1978-79, Coaching High School 1984-present

How many rounds have you judged in 2012-13: 50, 2013-2014: 45, 2015-2016: 25, 2016-17 15, 2017-2018: 30, 2018-19: 30, 2019-20:10, 2020-21: 40, 2021-2022: 35, 2022-2023:6

send evidence e-mail chain to quaintt@aol.com

I still view my self as a policy maker unless the debaters specify a different role for my ballot. I love impact comparison between disadvantages and advantages, what Rich Edwards used to call Desirability. I don’t mind the politics disad, but I am open to Kritiks of Politics.

I like Counterplans, especially case specific counterplans. I certainly think that some counterplans are arguably illegitimate; for example, I think that some international counterplans are utopian, and arguably claim advantages beyond the reciprocal scope of the affirmative, and are, therefore, unfair. I think that negatives should offer a solvency advocate for all aspects of their counterplan, and that multi-plank cps are problematic. I think that there are several reasons why consultation counterplans, and the States CP could be unfair. I will not vote unilaterally on any of these theoretical objections; the debaters need to demonstrate for me why a particular counterplan would be unfair.

I have a minor in Philosophy, and love good Kritik debate. Sadly, I have seen a lot of bad Kritik debate. I think that K debaters need to have a strong understanding of the K authors that they embrace. I really want to understand the alternative or the role of my ballot. I have no problem with a K Aff, but am certainly willing to vote on Framework/T against a case that does not have at least a clear advocacy statement that I can understand. I am persuadable on "AFF must be USFG."

I like Topicality, Theory and Framework arguments when they are merited. I want to see fair division of ground or discourse that allows both teams a chance to prepare and be ready to engage the arguments.

I prefer substance to theory; go for the theoretical objections when the abuse is real.

As for style, I love good line-by-line debate. I adore evidence comparison, and argument comparison. I am fairly comfortable with speed, but I like clarity. I have discovered that as I get older, I am very comfortable asking the students to "clear." I enjoy humor; I prefer entertaining cross-examinations to belligerent CX. Warrant your claims with evidence or reasoning.

Ultimately, I demand civility: any rhetoric, language, performance or interactions that demean, dehumanize or trivialize fellow debaters, their arguments or judges would be problematic, and I believe, a voting issue.

An occasional interruption of a partner’s speech or deferring to a more expert partner to answer a CX question is not a problem in my view. Generally only one debater at a time should be speaking. Interruptions of partner speeches or CX that makes one partner merely a ventriloquist for the other are extremely problematic.

Clipping cards is cheating. Quoting authors or evidence out of context, or distorting the original meaning of a text or narrative is both intellectually bankrupt and unfair.

There is no such thing as one ideal form or type of debate. I love the clash of ideas and argumentation. That said, I prefer discourse that is educational, and substantive. I want to walk away from a round, as I often do, feeling reassured that the policy makers, educators, and citizens of the future will seek to do a reasonable and ethical job of running the world.

For Lincoln Douglas debates:

I am "old school" and feel most comfortable in a Value/Criterion Framework, but it is your debate to frame. Because I judge policy frequently, I am comfortable with speed but generally find it is needless. Clarity is paramount. Because of the limited time, I find that I typically err AFF on theoretical objections much more than I would in a policy round.

I believe that any argument that an AFF wants to weigh in the 2AR needs to be in the 1AR. I will vote against new 2AR arguments.

I believe that NEG has an obligation to clash with the AFF. For this reason, a counterplan would only be justified in a round when the AFF argues for a plan; otherwise a counterplan is an argument for the AFF. The NEG must force a decision, and for that reason, I am not fond of what used to be called a 'balance neg.'

Email chains plz 

Keep your own time 

Dont say racist or sexist  things 

Run what your comfortable with 

Im good at flowing

I like spreading