Piper,+Kelsey

I'm a student at Stanford, and I did varsity policy debate for three years in high school, qualifying for nationals twice. My senior year, my partner and I were the Colorado state champions. I am flexible and will listen to any argument; I will usually default policymaker if neither team outlines a better paradigm.

I like intelligent, nuanced debate - engaging the subtleties of your opponent's arguments. Speed is fine, but having lots of evidence won't make up for having poorly-considered evidence.

I will listen to topicality, and vote on it, but I disapprove of using it as a time suck and I will also vote on an RVI if it seems appropriate.

I will vote on kritiks, but I hate lazy critical debate. To win a kritik in front of me, the neg should spend some time building a compelling link story, tying the K into the case, using it to turn affirmative advantages and solvency, and responding line-by-line to the aff. I've seen a lot of debaters who act like running a kritik excuses being sloppy on the line-by-line or that the link is so obvious that it doesn't require elucidating. It's not, and it does. A good team can run a kritik without oversimplifying the philosophers they quote. A good kritik debate should be thoughtful and nuanced. Neg, don't run your standard cap K shell. Aff, don't respond with your standard cap K block. If I feel like we actually turned over some new ground in the debate, I'll be much readier to vote on any sort of pre-fiat impact.

I like counterplans. An intelligent, unusual counterplan which competes with (and solves for) the aff will usually win. Generic states CPs usually will not - but again, intelligence and nuance is the key. Teams which aren't running any framework during a CP debate are being negligent.

I like disads. I especially like disads which turn case, which are unusual, or which otherwise show signs of some original and creative thinking. I like to see a lot of clash everywhere on the flow, but especially on a disad. Sketch me a clear and compelling link story, and convince me that your evidence supports it.

It won't affect how I vote, but I don't have a lot of patience for teams that are insulting, derisive, and generally assholes towards their opponents. It'll cost you speaker points, and it's just dumb.

Feel free to ask for details or clarification.