Bottoms,+Kevin

I debate at Georgia State and debated for 4yrs at Milton High School. Generally I only judge at local GA tournaments.

Most important is do what you do. I will judge what ever it is you want to do. You will do better debating arguments you like and in your style than trying to conform to what you think any judge wants so do what you will. If you win your arguments I will vote for them and while I have preferences I try not to let them influence my decision. The most impotant thing is that you do the debating not your evidence.

Generally speaking I default to a policy making paradigm, not because I like it but because that seems to be what most people debate as. I think the way the round should be evaluated is up for debate and think that makes for some of the more interesting debates. It must be warranted and explained however for either side to win. I think its silly to say that I am a "member of congress" and I am unlikely to persuaded by any kind of causes but I will vote for the team that makes the best arguments about what the role of the ballot is.

Topicality-- I like a good T debate, standards are the reason T is a voter and will vote on the cheap shot/dropped arg so read the shell. I hate tag line debate, I want to know what ground you lost, why your interp is more educational etc... the standard T preferences. For the most part I default to competing interp and offense defense, but it is not hard to pursuade me otherwise just because I default to that. I will vote on K's of T but just waving your arms about it being genocide or exlusion isn't going to do it.

CP's-- explain the perm to me and don't spew a million of them out, how does that function in a world where theres a net benefit etc. I want the function of an argument like a perm to be explicit. I will reward a well explained argument over a million bliphy ones. I generally am not a fan of generic CP's and wish affs would call abusive CPs out more, that being said I hate generic theory debates (condo/dispo etc.) and enjoy interesting CPs. I generally think a CP should be somewhat supported by the literature and clasheable.

DA--I hate nothing more than a disad without an internal link, its frustrating that these disads last longer than the cx of the 1NC. I think affs can win complete takes outs, if something doesn't link it just doesn't link.

Kritiks--I'm very familiar with most K literature and theory. I prefer Foucault/Heidegger style (meaning not necessarily the generic digger) and the link/impacts must be contextualized in terms of the affirmative. Framework is very important usually depending on the K but ranting about post/pre fiat means nothing to me. Affs that read a FW excluded critical arguments probably wont win that argument and will usually at least get to access their plan/harms but they still must win they have a right to those things. I'm interested by critical arguments but I have a high threshold on them, that being said don't shy away from it either.