Judge+Philosophy--Edwards

** Robert Edwards ** **Phoenix** **Military** **Academy** **Chicago****,** **IL** I debated in High School, at Loyola Academy in Wilmette in Illinois, for four years in the National Circuit. As a former debater, I have debated many topics and seen many diverse affirmative cases and negative attacks. Therefore, I ultimately consider myself to be “tabula rasa,” and I will consider as well as flow all arguments in the round. I consider myself to be meticulous when it comes to “flowing,” therefore the team that offers the most convincing risk analysis, impact analysis, and evidence analysis allows me to apply my flow when arbitrating my decision. I do not set restrictions on speed, I will flow all “spread” debates, and often I find that a good “spread” debate is engaging, and almost always educational for debaters and judge alike. In terms of preferences: I don’t particularly think that the negative should “drop” case at the expense of running an all “off case” strategy. Even in the absence of negative evidence against a case, the negative should, even if only analytically, attack affirmative solvency. I equally enjoy Disdads, Kritiks, and Counterplans, and I consider topicality to be a prima fascia burden of the affirmative. The most important thing to note is which team offers analysis on where and why I must vote for them. Concepts such as “weighing” the round, offering voting criteria, and pointing to specific “cards” and analyzing them and impacting them, is always a good strategy. If asked to, I will read evidence in the round. I may also ask for evidence if it is important to the argument I am considering voting for. In the final analysis, debate is all about “clash.” I prefer, but do not demand line item analysis of arguments, sometimes “grouping” strategies are best, especially in a good “spread” debate. All in all, we are here to learn about this topic, and I find that good teams always find ways to offer convincing, and compelling reasons as to why I should vote for them. GOOD LUCK
 * Judge Philosophy **