Gabriel,+Alex

I went to Cox High School and debated policy for four years, varsity for three of the four.

As far as issues go, I'm good with speed as long as there is a purpose. Meaning, don't go fast if there will be dead air, repetition, etc. I'll vote for anything as long as you do work on the flow, but just having it on my flow isn't quite enough.

Topicality: I'll vote for it but if you don't actually put any offense on the flow, I'll be bored and not enjoy voting for it. You have to actually prove the abuse and why T is a voter (a five second blurb on how it's key to fairness and education won't cut it). I don't vote on T as an RVI unless the neg never responds to it. If you want to win on T, you're probably going to have to spend the vast majority of the 2NR on it.

Kritiks: I love the K and I am definitely a critical judge (I ran Lacan and Badiou just about every neg round my senior year). However, they must be argued well and you have to prove to me that at least you know what the K actually means and do work on the line by line. Also, just telling me that kritiks are cheating is not going to be enough, I will rarely exclude anything unless you can prove the abuse (as a caveat - I personally will rarely buy that K's are abusive), and you're going to have to be solid on the line by line as well. Don't just argue the framework, chances are I will probably buy FW and you're going to need some kind of offense on the line by line.

Theory: Theory is great but please don't just give me a dump on both sides, if you go line by line I'll be much more likely to go your way on theory. Theory debates tend to get sticky, so keep it as clean as possible and I'll be happy.

Disads and Counterplans: I'll vote for them and I don't particularly have a favoritism towards or against them. If you're the aff, I'll be much more likely to sway your way on a disad if you put offense on it rather than just making no link/no impact arguments.

On a sort of side note, I'm receptive to performance, kritik of the topic, whatever you want to advocate will fly with me as long as you prove why it's necessary and why I should endorse it.

I rarely exclude anything, if I do it's because you have probably spent all five minutes of your rebuttal on it, done a ton of work on the flow, and proven the abuse. I'll call for evidence if you red flag it for me in the 2NR/2AR, but I'd prefer not to. You should be doing all of the work for me, tell me the warrants in your card if it's really key during your speech, and you'll win points with me. Basically what my entire philosophy boils down to is the line by line and offense, offense, offense. If you do a good job there, you've multiplied your chances that I'll pick you up. Make every argument have a purpose and give me a great impact analysis/prove the abuse.