Belisle,+Alex

I am pretty straight forward as a judge and about as tab as humanly possible. I've judged about 10 rounds on this year's topic and about 100 rounds last year. A few things about my debate career. I debated in high school and stopped in college due to fundamental disagreements with my school's coaching philosophy but am still active in the community. Overall I competed in over 120 debate rounds, qualified for NFL nationals twice, and won my state championship my senior year. As I progressed I tended towards the kritik debate but still enjoy a good straight up policy debate.

As for me as a judge:

Technical stuff: Speed is fine just please differentiate your tag lines (like voice inflection, 'next,' or number them, whatever works for you) and if possible emphasize the key part of your warrants that you want me to //really// notice. Tag teaming is great just don't overdo it. Also with CX, I think it is much more important and strategic than high school debaters give it credit for so please make use of it. As for anything else please feel free to ask and note I never vote teams down explicitly on technical elements, I view them solely as speaker point issues. Framework: I do not in any way default to a particular framework. I evaluate the round either through the mutually agreed upon framework or whoever wins the framework debate. Note this does not mean you can be lazy as a k-team, I still expect some kind of role of the ballot or separate framing argument to contextualize my ballot's interpretation of the kritik impacts and solvency implications. Kritiks: Make sure you really develop your links in the specific context of the aff (try to get away from generic link overviews) and your impact framing needs to be spot on. Do note however that I like to be on the flow rather than in a deep overview. Make your flow work create an overview and you'll get really high speaks from me. Also, I hold the negative (or affirmative) to the burden of advocating their alternative regardless of whether it goes dropped **unless** given a reason not to (for example if the kritik is only leveraged as an impact turn to the case in the 2NR an alternative does not necessarily need to be articulated, however if the kritik is advocated as a better solvency mechanism to the aff I expect an alternative to be articulated in the 2NR [role of the ballot arguments tend to be satisfactory in meeting this burden]). //If that sounded to complicated please ask me about it, it's a really simple concept when explained in person//.

Topicality/Theory: I love them. My partner and I won our state tournament on a topicality debate. Just be sure to keep them impacted in fairness and education and if you're going for them in the 2NR make sure they're legitimate violations. Line by line will make it more likely that I view a theory/T debate seriously or whether I see it as just part of your incredibly well crafted strategy (because it is well crafted right?). Please note you can't just say T or Theory is a voter for 'fairness and/or education.' For T/Th to be a voter it needs to be developed on the internal link level bridging the reasons to prefer and the in-round/debate community contextual impacts.

DAs: Link debate and contrasting impacts with the aff's is very important to me. Uniqueness is a little more ambiguous so don't count on beating a DA simply on that level. I generally prefer to see them ran with a counter plan but have no disposition to a team going for the win on comparative impacts.

CPs: Leverage their strategic value and your good. Don't bore me with them, that's bad for all of us.

If there's anything else please ask me but I am pretty much down with anything so don't be too concerned.