Sisak,+Lauren

Be nice, funny, clear and loud. Do not be mean to your partner or yell at him/her during his/her speech. Debate should be fun. You will automatically lose if you clip cards or fabricate evidence.
Dropped arguments are true. Arbitrary and unpredictable cross applications will be given little weight especially if it’s in the 2ar. I try to protect the 2nr as much as possible. Things I strongly dislike: Wipeout, Gregorian Calendar K, OSPEC/ASPEC, Consult, Condition CP’s, and other dumb cheap shots. If you are unsure about my feelings towards a certain argument, just ask. I value spin over evidence quality. This is not an excuse to read really bad cards and expect to win. I just feel a lot more comfortable leaving most of the interpretation of evidence to the debaters instead of myself. If one side has better evidence but the other side has better evidence comparison, I prefer in round evidence comparison. I am flow oriented and do not like to intervene. No underviews, please.

A couple notes: 
 * When deciding a round I try to intervene as little as possible, meaning I look to the flow first.
 * I will listen to any argument but am predisposed to a good CP/DA debate. This does NOT mean you should not read a K but it does mean that you should be prepared to explain it well, just like any other argument.
 * Dropped args are probably true but that does not mean you will win the round on one argument.
 * If the 1AR drops something, I am inclined to protect the 2NR, especially if it is a DA/K turns case argument.
 * CX is not clean up time--please treat it like another speech.
 * Don't be mean, rude, or obnoxious to your partner or opponents. This will hurt your speaker points more than dropping DA turns case in the 1AR.
 * I am not a good judge for attempts to change the debate community through my ballot--these have no place in a competitive setting.

Topicality: 
 * I default to competing interpretations but can be persuaded otherwise. If the aff does not have a counterinterpretation with reasons to prefer it, then I find it difficult to vote aff.
 * Please do not go for any type of specification argument--those belong nowhere outside of the 1NC unless completely dropped of course.
 * Neg: provide a caselist, what their interpretation justifies and why that's bad, and explain how yours is better

Counterplans: 
 * I loathe process CP's (consult/delay/sunsets/etc.). They avoid topic specific education and are probably not competitive.
 * Besides dispo/condo/multi-condo theory, other CP theory is usually a reason to reject the CP not the team and I still have the option to choose the SQ. If you must go for theory, multi-condo is your best option. 50 state fiat? Not so much.
 * I have no objections to mult-plank, multi-actor, or international CP's. The aff should ask if the neg can kick a plank at any time--if so, the neg should be able to defend this use of condo.

Disadvantages: 
 * A well debated DA will get you very far. This requires evidence and impact comparison--not intrinsicness or vote no type arguments.

K's: 
 * I will listen to any and all K's or performances. I prefer to hear a more policy oriented round, but will judge a more K round just as fairly.
 * K rounds frustrate me because most of the time the neg has no idea what the alt does--a well explained K is a lot better than a poor extension of a DA/CP.