Tiffany,+Travis

4 years of high school policy debate at TFA/TOC level at Hendrickson High School.

It is my first priority as a judge to intervene as little as possible that being said I have a predisposition to believing the magnitude of impacts proceeds as follows: Discursive reasons to reject the team/ Topicality or other theoretical reasons to reject the team/ Kritiks, Disads, Counterplans, etc. My predispositions are open to change depending on the arguments made by both teams. I analyze what is said in the rebuttals and nothing external to those arguments made.

I tend to default to competing interpretations on theory issues out of common practice, but would be happy to use any other framing if it’s well-warranted.

Although most of my background in debate is with kritiks, I don’t think that means that I’m biased either for or against the kritik. Moreover, while I’m familiar with most kritikal arguments deployed in debate rounds, there are some authors that I am more comfortable with than others. If you are afraid that this will influence your ability to win my ballot, feel free to ask me about specific arguments/authors before the round. Keep in mind that it is always expected that your analysis goes deeper than jargon-level description.

I’ll call for cards after the round if my decision hinges on their content or if evidence that makes conflicting claims are presented. However, I will not call for cards in order to compensate for a lack of explanation in the rebuttals.

Favorite 2NR: Topicality

Paperless: Prep time ends when flash drive leaves the computer, with leniency occasionally given in the event of technical mishaps and/or me being in an unusually good mood.