Hathaway,+Richard

Qualifications: Polytechnic School '15 Washington University in St. Louis '19 Debated 4 years of policy debate in high school at Polytechnic, two time TOC qualifier. Currently coaching/judging for Polytechnic in policy, and I also have a little experience in teaching/judging LD.

- Anything goes, don't be offensive. I will vote for policy and K arguments, and I have no problem listening to and voting for performance arguments or no plan affs (although please do it well). I only evaluate what is said in the round and leave out any argumentative biases I might have. Speed is fine, **slow down on the tags**, and tech over truth in most cases. The most important thing for me in the 2NR/2AR is not only just extending your arguments, but tell me why they matter and how they win you the debate. Impact calculus is important.
 * Quick philosophy:**

1. Read/go for anything, as long as it's not offensive. I'm just as willing to vote for a CP/DA strategy as I am a one-off K strategy. Some arguments are worse than others but I will listen to and vote for it all if you win it. I will evaluate only what is said in the round - that trumps any predispositions towards arguments I might have or are outlined below.
 * Longer:**

2. An argument consists of a claim and a fleshed out warrant.

3. As I said above, you need to write the ballot for me. Impact calculus is very important for me. Tell me which arguments matter the most and which ones don't and why these arguments win you the round. Every debater has heard this before but many still don't do this.

4. Speed fine, just be please be clear and **slow down on tags, plan texts, and counterplan texts**. Please signpost and label your arguments. If you are clear and organize the flow for me, high speaker points will be waiting for you.

5. K Affs and Framework - No plan affs and performance arguments are fine. I did not defend the government for a large part of my debate career on the affirmative, and I will readily endorse whatever type of advocacy you choose if you win it. However, I also will readily vote for framework if the neg wins it. There are good and bad framework arguments - I tend to think the "I don't get my politics DA" arguments falls under the bad category. I leave out any biases in my decision that I may have because it is very frustrating when a judge has predispositions against one side in framework debates. I feel comfortable in evaluating these debates considering the number of these I have been in, but I have also experienced that the 2NC and 1AR can make these debates very very very messy very quickly, so 2NR/2AR direction in what to evaluate and how will give you a much higher chance of getting my ballot, as in all other debates. In method debates, whether or not the aff gets a perm is up for debate.

6. K - This is where I am most familiar (especially neolib, colonialism/settlerism, security, and some psychoanalysis), and I am familiar with many others from going against them. Just because I am familiar with the K doesn't mean I will always vote for them; I know what good aff answers sound like. I love a good 1 off K debate. However, don't assume I know the argument and your jargon - just explain it well and don't be the person with a 7 minute overview with a 1 minute underview. The more specific the K the better. I think case debate is very underrated in K debates and can be used not only to mitigate the aff but also to prove the validity of the K. Ks with an alt are a lot easier to win but not necessary. I won't automatically kick the alt for you, you have to tell me to do it. Floating PIK arguments are ok if they are in the block (but don't necessarily have to be labeled so until the 2NR). Floating PIKs theory is a reason to reject the argument, not the team unless the neg drops the theory.

7. DA - cool. Have a good link/internal link story and strong uniqueness. Really good defense can beat a terrible DA - I do believe in 0% risk of a DA and will vote aff solely on strong defense if your DA fails a basic reality check.

8. T - standards and impacts are important, a case list is helpful, but slow down a little. Your lightning fast 2NR will be for nothing if my flow can't keep up with you. I will default to offense-defense in the debates, but I think for arbitrary and miniscule T violations, defense is enough for the aff to win, and I am more than willing to not use an offense-defense paradigm if told so by the aff. That said, if you have a good T violation that the aff clearly violates - go for it.

9. Theory - **Slow down on theory**. 3+ conditional worlds is getting into sketchy territory. If your conditional worlds badly contradict each other, theory becomes a bigger issue. Severely severing the aff could be a voting issue. I will vote on CP theory if needed, all other theory is most likely a reason to reject the argument not the team. You will almost never convince me that severance perms are a voting issue because it's not.

10. CP - Counterplans are great. Slow down on your counterplan text and don't use obscure government acronyms in your counterplan text. PICs, Conditions CPs, actor CPs probably ok (but doesn't mean you can blow off theory), Consult CPs - ehhh, Delay/other cheating CPs - make sure you have really good theory blocks. The best cheating counterplan is the referendum counterplan. CPs without solvency advocates have zero solvency. I'm ok voting against a counterplan solely on good theory arguments. A counterplan is not called a "C-Plan".

11. Case debate - I love it. Some of my favorite speeches I ever gave were 5 minutes of case in the 1NR picking apart the aff after my partner had done 8 minutes of the K in the 2NC.

12. Tech over truth in most circumstances, but some debates warrant a different decision-making calculus, which you should argue for during the round. 13. You keep track of prep. Don't ask me to go to the bathroom. Shaking my hand is weird. 14. Humor is good, don't be mean. Don't tool your partner. I'm not a grumpy old judge, and so I try not to impose an overly formal atmosphere in the debate round.

15. LD - I mostly judge policy, but sometimes tab has me take an LD ballot. If you find me in an LD round, I view LD as almost a shortened 1 on 1 policy round. Impact calculus is important, and I view the value and criterion as top level impact framing arguments. You don't need to hypotest the resolution. Policy arguments are fine. 16. Anything else - ask me.

Email: rhathaway24@gmail.com