Jones,+Cameron

Debate Experience: I debated all four years in high school doing lincoln-douglas and policy. I qualified to state and placed my senior year in high school and qualified to nationals on the NFL circuit in 2012. I have read or understand a majority of kitikal literature.

Aff and Case Debate: I know most judges don’t talk about the aff too much, just know it is your game and that I am a fan of kritikal affs. For the rest of case debate I love a bunch of advantages and kritikal advantages, in addition to case turns from the neg.

Paradigm: I like to consider myself tab. I am ok with you reading any arguments and I will vote on anything so long as it fits the framework of the round and you make your impact scenario and links clear. My only condition is that I ask that you slow down and make your tags/authors super clear. I won’t take it out on you if I miss a tag, I will just yell ‘clear’ and then get the tag from you after your speech. If it keeps happening after I ask you to clear up I will just stop flowing. If you are reading a kritik or anything that has crazy long tags, help me out by emphasizing the main point of the tag and keep it slow. Other than that I am totally cool with speed.

Disads/Counterplans: I will vote on any disads and almost any counterplan. As for counterplans I also don’t like overly vague coutnerplans, and as much as I try and keep myself tab, it does leave a bad taste in my mouth when I see teams run one or two counterplans just for the sake of spreading the aff out in the 1AR, and then seeing it kicked in the 2NR. I don’t know if this is fairly common elsewhere in the country, but it is fairly common here and I hate seeing it happen because I really do think it is abusive.

Topicality: I don’t vote on T very much, if hardly at all. Almost all the aff’s on the circuit I have been judging on are about as topical as it gets, and then teams get into arguments about interp’s that don’t matter. If your abuse scenario isn’t clear, I won’t pick it up. The only T I have picked up this year was when the case was enforced by the NOAA and not USFG and the abuse scenario was actually good, just for a frame of reference. But as long as your abuse scenario is clear and you extend it through the rebuttals it’s cool. For aff I am cool with K of T and RVI’s, especially when the T is clearly generic and meant to be a time suck.

Kritik: “I don’t care, I love it.” However, in order to frame the kritik against the plan I like some framework, so if you go with the K be ready for that.

Framework: Framework is a major thing for me. It frames how I evaluate the impacts and in what order I prioritize them. It determines how I vote.

Theory: This shit is a pain in the ass to flow. I am cool with it, just make sure you are going slow enough that I can flow it all.

Other than that just keep it line by line, sign post, etc. You are all super smart and know what you are doing. Good luck!