Banks,+Paul

If you have any questions, hit my email - it's paulmbanks at gmail.

Some information about me: I debated for Wilson HS in DC in high school and for Harvard in college. I don't really have any argumentative leanings in college: my partner and I go for a pretty diverse set of arguments on both sides of the resolution. I don't know much about this year's high school topic.

Basically, I think that describing how I decide debates is more important than my ideological leanings because I try to minimize those when deciding debates. I think you should do whatever you are good at. All of my predispositions can be changed with an argument. The only non-negotiable is that I'll protect the 2NR. I also place a premium on intense, specific research.

Impacting arguments is the most important thing to do. I don't like having to sort out what it means for me to, say, adopt some particular perspective when judging a debate. If I should be a policymaker, what should I prioritize? Clearly explaining that sort of thing is the best way to win with me in the back. I tend to read very few cards.

If you want me to judge kick an advocacy, please say something about it. I won't do that in the absence of any argument.

Generally speaking, I am in favor of conditionality and I think arguments in favor of negative contradictions are underexplored.