Clancy,+Pete

Name = Pete Clancy Affiliation = Cedar Rapids Washington School Strikes = CXphilosophy = I tend to have a pretty "hands off" approach to judging debate. I ultimately feel that the framework for the round is one of the essential questions that needs to be resolved in the round. That being said, I do have some mild preferences: 1. Topicality: Totally fine with T. I’m generally more persuaded by a competing interpretations debate than I am by abuse stories. I don’t need your 2NR to be five minutes of T to vote on it; however, I do need a decent extension of the issue. 2. Kritiks: I’m finding myself becoming more open to critical arguments. I do need quite a bit of work done on the link level, and I’m not terribly persuaded by generic links or links of omission. 3. Disads/CPs/Case Args: If my preferences matter (which even I don’t really think they do—that much) this is the type of debate I’d like to hear most. I really can’t think of any predispositions I have here that would matter in terms of how I evaluate the round. 4. Theory: A necessary evil, in my opinion. I hate judging theory debates, mostly because of the lack of clash and development I’ve seen. When the debate is messy, I typically err negative. I strongly prefer to have theory debates kept separate from the debate proper in terms of flowing. This isn’t necessary, but if you want me to seriously consider evaluating the theory debate, it’s in your best interest to keep it separate. 5. Decision Calc: I'm open to anything. If nothing is ever established in round, I will default to asking myself "which policy is best?" and vote for that policy. 6. Delivery: I’ll let you know while you’re speaking if I can’t understand. If you don’t fix the problem, I stop listening. Ask me questions before the round starts. Be nice. Use inclusive language. Enjoy the round.