Harris,+Timothy

I view the resolution as a truth statement. It is true when its truth conditions are met, and false when the conditions are not met. These conditions are debated on the interpretive level of the debate, which includes topicality, etc... I try to be objective as possible when it comes to making a decision based on the flow, but I do have preferences. These preferences will certainly affect your speaker points, though I will do my best to prevent these from affecting who wins and loses.

Overall, things like skep won't get you high speaks, but a smart stock case will. I am not fond of theory as it is currently run. Save it for real abuse. I gut check all theory. I am not well read in K lit or heavy meta ethic lit. I prefer to not see a K or case based on heavy ethical framework. Absent ANYWAY TO EVALUATE THE ROUND I default to which ever debater I liked more in CX. Be funny, dominant, but not rude. And remember this is high school debate, no need to make death threats to your opponent. Don't spread. You can go at a fast pace, but I write slowly so go about 300 or less. I will say clear once or twice, which is your key to slow down. If I stop writing there's a problem. Your A Strat shouldn't be going for permissibility/presumption. My threshold for presumption is very high and I prefer voting on real world impacts. I probably won't flow any one sentence blippy spikes in the AC, so if you are counting on those try something else. Stay away from new spangled and fancy jargon. I know what a turn is. I know what a burden is. But artificial sufficiency and meta theoretical RVI's give me a headache. Better be safe than sorry- don't use jargon, just explain the impact of the argument in relation to the round.

To sum up, I'm a parent judge with basic knowledge of the national circuit. If you can't adapt, don't pref me high. If you can, I'm a point fairy.