Hayes,+Andrew

Andrew Hayes Affiliations: Juan Diego, Glenbrook west/Alpine

Debate how you want to debate in front of me - "be the best version of you possible". If that means reading a politics disad, that's fine. If that means reading an affirmative with no plan, that's fine too. Yes, I have certain proclivities that will influence the way I evaluate a given debate but I'll attempt to objectively adjudicate based on what is said by both sides. __All__ of my preferences are subject to debate.

If you have questions, please feel free to ask.

Some of my favorite judges from high school include: Jarrod Atchison Calum Matheson Eric Lanning Jason Russell

Other Misc Things:

Defense/framing arguments/CX are all undervalued/underutilized. I reward self-awareness, coherence, engagement and humor. Be yourself. If you aren't funny, don't try to be. Theory: Don't be afraid to go for it in front of me. Too often negative teams get away with murder. I believe most theoretical objections (with the exception of condo) are a reason to reject the argument not the team but can be persuaded otherwise. Be technical if going this route - execution errors are usually what these debates come down to. Arg = claim + warrant I appreciate argument novelty If you don't have anything else to say sit down

Stolen from Sam Gustavson and I'm too lazy to rephrase: Clipping: If sufficient proof is presented to me that someone is intentionally clipping in a debate I will promptly vote against the offender and give both debaters on the team the lowest points the tournament permits. Now, if you accidentally skip one line or something and the other team calls you out and it doesn't appear deliberate I will simply just not evaluate that part of the card because it hasn't been presented in the debate. No one is perfect, I too accidentally skip a word from time to time. There's a difference between cheating and making a mistake in your presentation of evidence, and I will try my best to enforce that distinction.