Esgro,+Chris

. Tournaments on Topic: I debated for two years in high school for Scranton, amd have been judging/coaching for Scranton on and off since then. For the most part, I consider myself a pragmatist. The most feasible solution presented in the most clear and concise manner possible will win the round. I will not intervene unless to say "clear" for fake unintelligible speed.To further expound on my pragmatic paradigm, I will not vote for arguments that have no real world value and I am not supportive of non-unique K's of the system or some whinny bullshit about feminism or anything that the affirmative is not absolutely responsible for "in-round." The most persuasive speaker gets the highest speaker points, the least, gets the least, with nothing below 25.

T/Theory debates- This is expected, but drawn out theory debates take away from the real-world value of the debate, so neg shouldn't use as a crutch. So, for the most part, I will vote on reasonability, unless you convince me otherwise. K’s- Back to my original position, I see little value in a K debate that simply is used to voice opinions or personal beliefs. Therefor, an alternative must be present along with a unique reason for why I should vote for it at the end of the round. Any further clarification is available at the beginning of the round. CP’s-Pic's are fine, and CP's are a great strategy. Again, I reiterate, the most prgmatic, real-world solution will win. Impact Calculus is necessary in making me see your point of view. Case/DA’s- These are my favorite debates to hear. Neg can win with case turns and a cp with a net benefit that solves the harms and avoids any specific case DA's. To me, that shows the greatest amount of research, technical/theory skill, and real-world value for the debate. Final Notes- I am willing to share my positions further upon request and I am not against giving you my RFD after the round, but your arguments with me will not change my ballot.