Swenson,+Megan

Background: Sophomore at Emory University. Formerly debated at Wayzata High School. Lab lead Michigan 7 Week Juniors lab this summer. Judged at a few local Atlanta tournaments and Ohio Valley.

This is Greenstein's version of my judging philosophy, which is honestly pretty good if you don't have much time: Debating in front of me is a dream… if you are affirmative. I hate the K, so don’t even front. Topicality is interesting at best. Disadvantages are magical. So is debating the case. I am usually moody, so if I seem grumpy it’s probably not your fault, just roll with it. Lastly, just because I am from Minnesota does not mean I have Minessota love.

Otherwise, here is a more reasonable version

For the most part, I am a disad/counterplan/case debater - that's what I was taught in high school, and it's been reinforced at Emory. I enjoy and will reward good impact comparison (this applies to theory and topicality as well). This is more than just "da outweighs the case" - you need to explain how your impacts interact with the rest of the debate...doing this means I have to interfere less at the end of the round.

Topicality: Probably slightly aff biased, which means that I usually default to just deciding whether or not the aff and neg are on fairly equal ground - though I can still be persuaded to evaluate the debate based upon competing interpretations. In order to win a topicality debate in front of me, you need to win that the aff interpretation excludes some arguments that are necessary for neg competitiveness/arguments that are essential to the topic.

Theory: I don't really want to have to vote on theory, but I will if I have to, and if the team complaining has made a legitimate "reject the team" argument - otherwise I will default to rejecting the argument. Conditionality, PICs, etc are fine (though 5 or 6 conditional counterplans may be slightly unfair). Process counterplans are probably not fine, especially if you do not have a very good solvency advocate.

K: I don't really enjoy reading this literature, and if it is more complicated than biopower or capitalism, you probably need to spend a little bit more time explaining each component of the debate in layman's terms. If you do not talk about the alternative in the 2nr, you are very unlikely to win the debate. Similarly, if you do not attack the alternative in the 2ar, you are probably not going to be happy with my decision.

Finally, please be nice and have fun. Whether you are an amazing debater or someone just in the activity for kicks, I will probably make a comment to you after the round expressing my displeasure (and that will also be reflected in your speaker points). Debate is a competitive activity, but each round should be a joyful learning experience.