Ryan,+Zac

Let me start off by saying that I've gone more and more K-heavy in recent years; judging more, running more, and having more run against me.That being said, I am an extremely versatile judge, as I hope you will see in the rest of this page. My methodology here will be to break down each argument, and what my standards for each are.

Topicality: 3 words are important here: IN ROUND ABUSE. I don't care if you run topicality and can prove in-round abuse. I do care if you waste everybody's time using it as a time-sink. Granted, I have never, and probably will never, vote on time-sinking your opponent, but its one of the many dishonorable practices that I see occur, and that in turn irk me to no end.

Kritiks: I have seen many, many clever things done with kritiks over the years that I've been debating. Overall, if you can get your impacts to come first, or to just straight up outweigh the other team's, I will almost always vote for you. Negatives: just make sure you're winning the framework argument before you go for the K.

Framework: I guess I'm rather tab in how I evaluate framework-- I'm open to what's most fair, what's best for debate, what's best for the individuals in the room, what's best for education, etc... Just prove your point and disprove the other team's point and I'll side with you on framework.

Theory: Once again, In Round Abuse. I don't care if you think that they justify running anything, at any point in time-- prove to me //how// that harms you in-round.

DA-- I hate politix a lot, but I will listen to it, and will try not to have any bias towards it. To that end, show me that you can turn their case, or that you outweigh. I am a stickler for plan-specific evidence, and love it when people call others out on generic DAs.

CP: Mutually exclusive option. I just want to see that there is some reason to do your CP over their plan. At the point wherein I can do both, I don't care how many advantages you have.

Performance: I //love// performance teams. I don't believe that it will ever replace policy or more main-stream kritiks, but it is a wonderful supplement. Expect a fair hearing from me; also, I'm not a stickler for a plan-text, if you're performance and don't read a plan text, but make it abundantly clear what you're doing in round, you should have a good chance with me.

Purposefully Non-Topical Plans: These types of kritikal teams, who use what amounts to a negative position on the affirmative will also expect to receive a fair hearing from me. I will not a-priori vote you down, but nor will I a priori vote you up. I expect you to function within the round, even if you are kritiking debate. The most important thing with these teams for me is that they show that they are //genuine.// If you read the most fantastic evidence, are utterly tearing apart the negative, but they bring up the fact that you don't //do// anything once the debate round is over, expect me to: A) Look at you in an entirely different light, and/or B) If the negative tries to show how they have done more in their real lives than you, and make framework into a competition of that, do not expect me to rule it out. That being said, I am running a non-topical plan right now. I know how they function and enjoy going up against them and running them. But please, for your own sake, be genuine.

Any questions, ask me before round. Thanks again.