Vincent,+Jon

While I do have four years of high school policy debate experience, this will be only the second time I

judge for this year’s topic, so you will probably have to explain acronyms a little to me and what not.

But as for specific comments: CP: I am a fan of the argument. However, if you’re going to run it, I’d prefer if you go all in and run it

unconditionally (which isn’t to say I won’t listen to conditionality good or bad arguments, it just means

I’m slightly biased toward the conditionally bad arguments). Cross-X. Do whatever you want. I’m fine with open cross examination. I’m just going to observe

however; nothing said will make it to my flow. However, if you are overly rude or offensive, I will dock

you some speaker points. Kritiks: While I was more of a CP/DA debater in high school, I’m open to the argument. However,

given this, you have to realize that I may not instantly link your K to its underlying meaning; explain

the argument a little bit at the end as an overview. Also, if you’re going to run this argument, make the

alternative reject the other team or something like that. If it’s just “consider blank in the future,” and

you win the argument, I will consider “blank” in the future, but you will not win the round off of that

argument alone. Speed/ Spreading: When speeding, please be clear and don’t slur. Especially slow down on the tags

and the authors so I can get them down. While I’m not planning to yell clear, you should be able to read

my face to see if I’m lost or not. I also feel spreading is a great way to determine what holes exist in an

affirmative team’s plan Topicality: Run it if you want. I’m fairly middle of the road when it comes to it. I’m not going to instantly

vote down a T argument when I hear it; I’ll consider it and might vote on it.