Freudenheim,+Mark

I am a fourth year debater at Emory University. I debated for four years in high school at Edina High School. I have judged a a good deal of rounds on this topic. I am a very expressive judge. Its usually easy to tell what I'm thinking by looking at me during the round.

I will do my best to resolve the debate with as little intervention as possible by sticking to the flow. I prefer not to have to read evidence, but I will call it if I need to verify claims made about the evidence in-round.

Topicality- I like good T debates, but I probably have a bit of an Aff bias and am easily persuaded by reasonability arguments. That does not mean I won't vote on T, the neg just needs to do a really good job of explaining why I should vote for their standards. I will evaluate T based on the framework given in the round. The debaters need to tell me how to vote. I think T is about ensuring the best predictable ground for constructive debates for both teams.

Theory- I err neg on theory, but I hate voting for cheap shot one sentence claims like "multiple perms bad" that get dropped in the 1ar. I will vote on them if developed, but I will take it out on your speaker points. If I have trouble flowing you, I will make it clear.

Counterplans- I love a good strategic and highly specific counterplan. That being said, I have issues with consult, delay, and condition counterplans. Any counterplan that does the entirety of the aff should logically merit an aff ballot. Its fairly easy to win competition claims against these arguments in front of me.

Disads- There is nothing I like more than a straight up disad and case debate. I'm particularly fond of the politics disad.

Kritiks- I have been coming around to these arguments more recently. I am not that well read in K literature, so the critical team needs to do a really good job of explaining specific links and why I should vote for the alternative. "You use securitization rhetoric" is not enough explanation of a link.

Speaker points- An average debater will get a 27/27.5. Good cross-x and lots of jokes will positively impact your points. Lack of clarity and meanness will negatively impacts your points.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the debate.