Thorpe,+Ashton

Ashton Thorpe

I've judged 7 rounds on this topic. (Ocean Exploration) I ran mostly framework and k's as well as a lot of topicality and theory arguments.
 * Background- ** I debated 3 years at 3 different High Schools.


 * First and Foremost- ** Be kind and considerate to your partner and opponent. Nothing will drop your speaker points more then being rude/too aggressive. Also, don't argue with me after the ballot is signed, it won't help you out at all.


 * Speed- ** I am fine with speed, but be very clear on tag lines and authors.


 * Speaker Points- ** I always base the majority of speaker points off a debater's rebuttals, so do clear analysis and be persuasive in your rebuttal if you want over a 26.


 * Aff- ** Do what you do best. I would much rather have you read a decent traditional aff compared to a sloppy critical aff. I also enjoy performance/identity debate, but like I said, do what you do best.

When I vote on framework, it is mostly for a critical aff. I think framework is more of an argument of the mindset I should use to evaluate the round, so don't rely too heavily on it for the RFD. Standards are key.
 * Framework- ** I think framework can be a RFD, but you have to do a lot of work in order for me to pull the trigger on it.


 * Topicality- ** I love seeing a 2NR that goes for T, because I think a lot of negative teams don’t think it is a viable option. I would rather vote on a clean topicality argument then another argument that is messy, so don’t be afraid to go for T. I vote on independent voters. Impact your standards very well. Topicality is always a voter for me.


 * Theory- ** I have a very high tendency to vote on theory, just prove the abuse. I feel as though affirmative theory is very powerful if executed well. I vote on independent standards here as well. Impact your abuse claim as well as possible if you are going for theory. I will vote on Condo/Perf Con/ Multiple worlds if the neg continues to contradict itself after the 2NR, as long as you point it out in the 2AR.

In order to win you need a clear link story, and use the links as a DA to the perm. Impact analysis and comparison is necessary for me to vote on it. The alternative is the most important part of your K, so explain the world of the alternative and why I should vote on it over the aff. Protect your alt!
 * K’s- ** I really like K’s if done well. I will vote on any K you want to run, so don’t be afraid to run an argument that might seem like the average judge wouldn’t vote on it.

For me to vote on a CP, I need clear solvency and net benefits. I think all aff perms on CP’s are legitimate as long as they still involve all the aff.
 * CP- ** Good contextual and advantage CP’s are what I like the most. I think ultimately condition CP’s and consult CP’s are illegitimate, but ill need a theory argument to reject them. I think some PIC’s are also illegitimate as well, but I need theory to reject it.

I think links and internal links must be explained well in order for me to vote on the DA. Impact analysis is necessary for me to vote on the DA. Claiming the DA outweighs the case must be warranted. The majority of the time I vote on a mixture of a DA with case or a CP, but I will still vote on a single DA.
 * DA- ** I like DA’s that have updated uniqueness, and you will be rewarded for doing so. The uniqueness needs to make sense in order for me to vote on the DA.


 * Case- ** Case is the most important part of every debate. I will vote on a 2NR that is case turns/solvency take out, so don’t be afraid to go for case. In order for me to vote aff, you must prove solvency. Any solvency deficit will hurt your chances of an affirmative ballot.

I don’t take time off for flashing, but don’t take forever.
 * Pet Peeves- “ ** Extinction” is not a tagline.