Alter,+Andrew

>  Andrew Alter > Emory University class of 17 > Bellaire HS class of 13 > > I debated for 4 years at Bellaire in Houston, TX. Mostly local. Went for politics mostly, and the k (mostly security) at larger tournaments. > At Emory I have debated occasionally in policy debate still. I’m a 1A/2N. > I usually found argument preferences of a judge to be unhelpful in that what happened during the round was always more important. I obviously have preferences and naturally think certain kinds of arguments are more or less persuasive, but my predispositions will never take the place of in round arguments. Go for the best argument for you and explain it. Blah blah. That said, here a few specifics: Conditionality – probably fine. More than 3 worlds plus the SQ might be pushing it. > > Talk about the topic. My preference is that you read a plan, but I’ll vote for a planless Aff about the resolution if impacted well. I’ve only participated in a few debates about Identity Politics, and have never judged one-so I’ll need a lot of explanation. > > When I vote neg on the K, I need to have a clear picture of what the alt means. > > Defense can be total, but it’s hard. This means I can be convinced there is zero risk of a link to the disad, or the aff solves 0% of an advantage. This doesn’t mean I vote on absolute defense often-most of the time a team can prove a slight risk. I have, however, been convinced of zero risk before. > I won't kick the CP for the 2nr.
 * Thoughts – **

Cross x is binding. > > I have been coached by Ed Lee, James Herndon, and Nick Miller. I like their judge philosophies.