Coates+Welsh,+Rufus

Hoflo '12 Uchicago '16

I debated policy in high school for 4 years on the national circuit but not in college. I think that judging philosophies can be needlessly lengthy and I don't have that much to say so I'll keep it short

I'm fine with any style of argument, I really don't care what you run in front of me as long as you explain it.

Thoughts on specific arguments-

Kritiks- I went for them a lot in high school, but I'm definitely not someone who checks in when they're read. I have a decent understanding of the more common critiques but if you're reading something extremely esoteric or relatively new you might want to spend more time explaining the thesis of it- I think that's something K debaters in general often need to spend more time doing anyway.

Topicality/theory- I can and have voted for these arguments but in all honesty I might not be the best judge for them- I don't have "high thresholds" or whatever but I think that often debates get muddled and people forget to do comparative analysis- frame the debate for me and tell me how I should be evaluating different standards, how they interact with each other and which is more important. Examples, case lists, abuse stories, and so forth all are important and help communicate your point significantly better. Especially for topicality, I have judged around 10 or 11 rounds on the topic but I'm not incredibly familiar with the specific mechanisms- characterizing the differences in what the aff does and how that is different from topical action is important.

Counterplans- make sure they solve case. Competitiveness is important. Plan plus is a non starter, functional pics are probably ok, and consult/condition cps could go either way. That being said each respective side needs to mount a defense of their counterplan or lack of and shouldn't assume that I'll check in on minimal warrants especially if the other team is heavily engaging in the debate

Disads- call them out if they're stupid, internal link defense isn't used enough and logical jumps shold be pointed out. I probably think there is such thing as no risk of a DA but I find it hard to assign that if both teams have half decent evidence and are arguing it

Performance- I'm always willing to listen to it, its interesting, and framework could go either way- I'll do my best to evaluate it objectively.

Tech comes before truth- if you can't beat racism good learn how- but arguments require a warrant as well as a claim- if the neg drops condo, the 2ar saying "condo was dropped vote aff" with no standards will make me extremely hesitant to vote for it.