Panetti,+John

Uh I like good arguments. If you make them I'll be persuaded.

I've debated policy (and regrettably some Public Forum) for 4 years now and I currently debate at JMU. This is my second year judging.

I consider my philosophy in a debate round to be pretty Tabula Rasa. Most of my predispositions to arguments go away when the debate starts and won't affect how I evaluate the round. Just don't be mean or boring (if possible) and you're fine.

A few specifics:

T: If an aff is proven to not be topical then I vote neg unless otherwise persuaded. That being said my threshold for T is relatively high. There needs to be an impact warranted in the 2NR, and if you're going to go for T you have to really go for T (next to nothing else in the 2NR). Also I run non topical aff's all the time, just explain to me why you shouldn't have to be topical and you're fine.

Disadvantages: Yeah those exist. Needs to have an impact. Make the impact interact with your opponent's impacts (i.e. impact calculus). If you win a risk of a link and an impact then the aff is probably a bad idea. Politics is fun but only if there's recent evidence and a believable impact scenario. I'm for some reason becoming slightly more persuaded by the whole "probability outweighs magnitude and timeframe" arguments, because let's be honest, an agriculture bill not getting passed probably won't cause nuclear extinction. Or it might, who am I to say?

Counterplans: Needs a net benefit. I'm not super familiar with counterplan theory, so if you're going to go for it explain it to me well. I'm relatively unreasonably susceptible to being persuaded by perms tho, which is why a net benefit is absolutely necessary.

Kritiks: Yus pls. I'm relatively familiar with most K lit, but if you're gonna run high theory Deluze or something be ready to explain to me what a rhizome is. Again, the perm is pretty persuasive to me, so be sure to articulate a clear link story and why the perm either links harder or doesn't resolve the link. Also, links of omission aren't really persuasive to me, but I can be convinced otherwise. A lot of Kritikal debaters tend to go hard on the link and the impact level and undercover the alt solvency. You generally need all three well established if you're going to persuade me.

Theory: I mean okay. Condo is probably alright as long as it doesn't get unreasonable. It's probably checked by being able to make perms. My threshold on theory depends on the kind of theory, but again if you're going to go for some kind of abuse you really have to go for it. If you don't answer theory and the other team brings it up then you're probably screwed. Also pls no aspec T_T

Framework: Framework is the lens through which I evaluate the round. Again if this isn't contested then it's what I default to, even if it's "our interpretation is whoever reads more poems gets better education" or something. That being said have an interpretation. A few cards that say science fiction is good isn't a framework (trust me I thought it was when I was a high school debater).

That's mostly it. Really just do whatever you want, do what you're good at but feel free to try new things in front of me, I'll be more than happy to give feedback. TLDR: A dropped argument is probably a true argument. Everything needs an impact. Don't run aspec. idgaf