Sevedge,+Chris

I did policy debate for three years in high school in the state of Kansas for Saint Thomas Aquinas High School.

My first year of judging was the 2007-2008 season. -I like clash. It doesn't really matter what you do in the round as long as you can make some smart arguments that clash.
 * JUDGING PREFERENCES**

-->__**Corollary: If you have a disad that the other team only puts a defensive argument against like a non-unique, and they win the defensive argument, my default is going to be that the disad is gone**__. If you are incredibly good at the risk assessment debate you //might// be able to get a ballot on risk aversion, but I have never seen anyone do this well enough for me to vote on it without them also working the defense to a coin-toss instead of a win. Your best bet with me is to treat such defensive arguments as if you cannot lose them, and to accept the fact that if you are losing them you probably will not get any of the weight of your disad (assuming the defense breaks the chain, like a non-unique or a no-linkif the defense is just "the impact won't be that bad probably," I probably treat that more like what you're accustomed to) so adjust your strategy accordingly.

-I really, really prefer to not get involved. I will virtually never call for a card. Your explanation of the card's warrants should be enough to win or lose the point for you. -Be clear. I can handle speed but I like hearing what the text of your cards say; when you blur the words together into an indecipherable jumble of syllables, you aren't helping yourself. I actually wanna hear what you're reading. I tagged files once too, I know the tags are only a small part of evidence evaluation.

Performance--Never heard it, but I won't stop paying attention if you do it. Proceed at your own caution.
 * SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS**
 * Theory**--I expect warrants on theory debates and I expect clash here maybe more than anywhere else. I don't think it's wise to go all in on theory with me in the back of the room, but it isn't unwinnable.
 * Topicality**--My debate career was full of non-topical cases, but I'm more than happy to pull the trigger on T. I've been in this debate several times, and I honestly don't have a bias either way on competing interps or reasonability. A 15 second T shell won't get you far with me, though--if you want it available as an option, you're going to want to develop it heavily.
 * New arguments in the 2NC**: I dislike new offensive arguments in the 2NC, and if an affirmative extends a theoretical objection to new offense in the 2, the negative better defend it well. Absent such a theoretical objection, you risk pissing me off, which won't alter win/loss but probably speaks. New defense doesn't bother me.
 * Disads**: Disads and solvency turns are my favorite arguments in the world. Specific is good. Generic is fine. Politics disads are Satan's spawn, but if you win it then you win it. Granted, I'm more likely to listen to theory against politics disads than the majority of judges, but I doubt your opponents' A strat response to politics is theory, so you probably won't have to worry about that.
 * Counterplans**: I like counterplans too. The more specific your research, the better it is for you with me in the back of the room. Case-specific PIC's are probably my second-favorite arguments in the world.
 * Critiques**: I'm not that familiar with most of the literature base, but if you want to run one anyway, I won't stop you. Just keep in mind that at the end of the round I need to know what I'm voting for. Indicting affirmative assumptions without offering an alternative isn't terribly persuasive to me. Here again my preference for smart clashing arguments is most likely to impact how I evaluate rounds, because I don't have a problem voting for a team defending against a critique with only analytical arguments if they do it well. Probably not the best strategy for the team getting critiqued, but that's a risk you run when you run a critique with me in the room---I'm very aware that you can "win" according to your critique, your file, and the flow, but if you don't make it clear to me what's going on in a way that obviates those analytical refutations, that "win" isn't going to be accompanied with a ballot. I would apologize for that, but frankly, that's how this game works. Deal with it.
 * Framework**: I generally like hearing it in the 1AC if it's going to come out for the affirmative, but that's not absolutely necessary. I'm open to creative framework interpretations, but be clear about their ramifications throughout the round.

I enjoy humor significantly. Make me laugh, your speaker points may be the recipients of a bump. Be a jackass, and they'll drop. Be a funny jackass, who knows?

If you're going to disclose before the round, it better be honest disclosure--I will be more than happy to listen to a theoretical objection on dishonest disclosure. And by "listen to" I mean "vote on."