Lehrman,+chase

Chase Lehrman-debated four years at Cedar Rapids Washington and am a sophomore debater at Iowa

Thoughts: 1. As a judge i think that arguments without evidence can be just as important, I value true arguments in debates more than some. As such I think that you can win zero or near zero risk of an argument. 2. I will try to prevent argument biases from impacting the round but the easiest way is for the debaters to provide an analysis of how to evaluate the debate.

Arguments CP/DAs: I tend to lean negative on theory questions but that's not to say i won't vote on it if it is debated well. the way to beat counterplans on theory in front of me is to challenge the competition of the CP. I love a good politics DA or any specific disad debate.

T: topicality is a voting issue but a specific abuse story is important as well as a terminal impact. By that i mean catch phrases like "fairness" and "education" are not good enough discussions of the importance of voting on T. I default to reasonability but the aff winning reasonability only matters if they explain how their interpretation is reasonable.

K: I do not think an alternative is necessary but if there is an alternative I think that the 2NR alternative should be the same as the 1NC. The most important part of the debate for me is the internal link to the impact, How does the aff lead to the impact? The best links are sometimes in the aff evidence or explanation of how the aff does what your evidence is saying is bad.

Case debate: Specific case debates are rewarded in speaker points, that generally does not apply to impact turn debates (spark comes to mind).

performance: I default to believing that the aff has to defend the resolution and that the plan is the focus of the debate. To win, i have to understand what my ballot means.