Veroff,+Dan

Edgemont High School
Judging philosophy:

I like a lot of off case positions if there is a strategy to having so many beyond the strategy to short the 2AC. Otherwise I am the most interested in hearing a few off case positions that are really ready for anything. For the aff, I like non-traditional affs as long as they are not a generic collection of K cards and actually have something to do with the resolution...also, the thing that puts me the sleep to most is hearing a 2AC answering new framework args off the top of their head...I like your non-traditional affs to be well thought out and planned for.


 * K** - the more specific it is the more likely you will win it in front of me. that means there is a specific link and a specific INTERNAL LINK...meaning the plan has to actually cause an impact. it can't just be related to some K and then all of a sudden the impacts are guaranteed. i hate doing work for debaters on the K and i would rather do work for the aff in the case that there is no reason why the aff specifically causes an impact...that doesn't mean you can't be analytical or use aff cards against them to do this. I want a clear world of what the alternative looks like and I would the K to be spoken of almost exclusively in the context of the aff. if the K is not designed for specific affs then i want the analysis about why the case is important to reject in terms of the larger picture. i generally think fiat debates are not conclusive and i almost always ignore them if the debate is close. i think that if you want to go for fiat bad then it really should be the only arg in the last speech, because i will view it similarly to T in that case. i also tend to dislike language Ks and prefer big impact Ks.


 * DA CP -** i like these and so does everyone else.


 * T -** offense / defense is a good paradigm but...well you should be able to tell by the debate round if i am going to switch over to reasonability. i think that reasonability is a good standard to apply to offense/defense. you need to analyze your offense and defense and explain to me how the aff not only loses in that world but is also reasonably not topical due to surmountable offense. i think that the aff can still be behind in this way and still win if they frame their aff within reason. "my aff is the core of the literature" but it violates one word of the resolution is okay with me if the neg interpretation means banning a good case and allowing only shallow ones. anyway depends on the debate. so be careful.


 * Theory** - i like it and i will vote on it if it is a good, in depth debate. shallow theory debates are always hard for me to analyze because i fear that i missed small args when i was flowing, and thus i will be less likely to look at it as a deciding factor.


 * Speaking and speed** - SPEAK CLEARLY. on a scale from 1 to 10 i would say i can judge a speed of 8, but i can do 9 or 10 if you are very clear. if you are, someone would have told you by now. if not, dont try to confuse me. i will more likely mess up the flow then get your extra 3 args.


 * Performance** - i'm not really a fan...sorry...strike me