Bernhardt,+Aaron

I originally wrote this when I thought I was only going to be judging in Colorado, so some things may seem obvious if you're not from there. I haven't debated in a while, and I only judge a few tournaments per year, so I probably won't be super-up on the topic literature or the new, hip argument.

I tend to weigh things in an offense/defense mindset. Simply saying your harms/da impacts aren't as bad as you say they are or you don't solve as much as you say you do won't win you my ballot probably. Combining those things well with solid impact analysis can very easily win you my ballot. Impact analysis should start in the 2 AC and should be in every speech after that. You should be addressing things such as how quickly/likely your impact will happen in addition to how big it is and why that means it matters more. I am willing to vote for an aff that has a high probability of solving smallish harms occurring in the status quo over a giant nuke war da impact if you prove to me why probability/timeframe in this debate is the most important. Finally, go for a single strategy in the 2 NR/AR. This is especially true for T or theory - you probably don't have enough time to do both and you probably won't be able to demonstrate much abuse to me.

Speed - I haven't debated in a long time, nor do I judge all that often, so be cautious. I prefer a quick debate to a slow one, but I also prefer an in depth slower debate to a blipy fast debate between teams trying to use speed for the sake of using speed. Feel free to read a bunch of off-case positions in front of me, but you should probably start condensing in the block, and even more in the 2nr. Clarity is more important than speed. If I'm part of a panel, I won't penalize you for adapting to a slower/faster judge.

Kritiks - I didn't run them much, but feel free to. Just make sure you can and do explain it well. If your authors speak in 'post-modern' make sure your tags are in very plain english, and it's best if they aren't a paragraph long either. I only K literature I might know somewhat well is if it was popular 3-4 years ago. If it wasn't popular then, I will do my best to understand your argument, but don't assume I know the specific lingo involved. I'm not a big fan of the aff should/shouldn't get to fiat debate, and I think a lot of people use it as an excuse for not debating the K. I view K's like any other argument in that both sides need to provide good link and impact analysis on them.

Counterplans - I love them. Run pretty much any CP you want to, just make sure you prove it's a superior choice to the aff not just an alternative choice. I'm cool with agent counterplans and a good, case specific PIC/DA combo was my favorite strategy. It is very difficult (though not impossible if you do a really good job) to sway me on topical counterplans shouldn't be allowed. I personally feel that conditional CP's can be iffy, though I lean toward them being ok, and dispo ones are just fine (if you want to run theory on them, still feel free to. If you win the that theory debate, I'll vote for you, just realize you're fighting an uphill battle against my biases.). Consult CP's are a bit more iffy, and I could perhaps be swayed by theory or some slightly intrinsic perms if you debate it well.

DA's - run 'em.

T - I think topicality debates can be very interesting, but that doesn't mean I necessarily err neg here. I can be swayed to vote because your interp is better for debate in general - though you need to make sure you explain why this is, and not just repeat buzzwords from your shell. It always helps your case if you can prove actual in round abuse.

Theory - I'm not a big fan of it, but feel free to run it. You don't need gigantic shells with me, especially when you first introduce the argument. If you don't specifically address the other team's responses, you probably won't win a ballot. If you end up going for it, it should be the only thing you go for.

Case - I covered this earlier, I think. Defense by itself almost certainly won't win the debate, as aff can easily prove that there is a risk of bettering the status quo. You can win my ballot without anything but case arguments, as long as some at least are offensive. I don't demand more out of inherency than to prove that your specific policy isn't being done right now.