Hilton,+Palmer

I debated at The Meadows School in Las Vegas for 3 years. I am currently a student at Bucknell University in Lewisburg, PA

T- I generally err aff on topicality. I feel that if a team is running an aff that is fairly common among teams on the national circuit then it is reasonably topical, and the other team should be prepared to debate against it. This does not mean i will not vote for T or do not like T. I went for T most of my debates during my Senior year, and I really like running it, I just believe it is used improperly in debate. I tend to vote on T more often if there is a true impact for the negative team, but if debated well I will vote on T regardless. If the Aff is grossly untopical and the neg team simply does not have anything prepared to answer the aff then there is a true impact for the negative team. Prove to me you were put at a disadvantage by the aff running their plan.

Theory- I get very bored with theory debates. I think for the most part they are a cop out, and teams should focus more on a substantive debate. Most theory violations are for things that really dont hurt debate very much at all. I will listen to your arguments but I am not likely to vote on theory unless i am forced to (if the other team drops it). I really dont think Conditionality is bad, its part of debate and every team runs conditional arguments. Overall I defer to reject the argument not the team.

Counterplans- I love good counterplan debates. I love hearing policy debates more than any other kind of debate. You must run the counterplan well, as with all other arguments. But I do not like to see teams run 3 or 4 generic counterplans for no reason except to run more arguments to screw the 2ac. I have no problem with generic counterplans as long as they solve the case. I prefer to listen to sweet new well researched cp's that I have not heard before, or are specific to the case. I also like PIC's a lot, but they must be case specific, and not Word PIC's. I hate Consult Cp's. I think they are cheating and very abusive to the aff. That does not mean I will not vote for them, but you will have a harder time getting me to vote for them.

Kritiks- I have experience with Kritiks. I ran them i high school but I am much more policy oriented. I will listen to all of your kritiks but you must explain them well. Also I really like to hear specific links to the case. In too many cases teams just run a generic kritik with a generic link. This is not good. I need good link analysis and a reason to prefer the negative's framework for the kritik to be considered in the debate.

Disads and Case - I think this is the most important part of the debate. This is where there will inevitably be clash and that will lead to better debates. I also think these arguments are some of the most straight forward arguments that are also some of the best. It all comes down to impact calculus at the end of the debate. I really like hearing impact calc underviews and overviews, and telling where to vote and why.

I have not judged any debates this year on the Military Deployment topic. If you have any questions just ask during the debate or email me at jph025@bucknell.edu