Fitz,+Carl

4 years of high school policy debate at TFA/TOC level at A&M Consolidated High School. Currently in 4th year of NDT/CEDA competition at University of Texas.

It is my first priority as a judge to intervene as little as possible while evaluating the debate round. This means that I look to the arguments made in the last rebuttals in the context of how they are explained by the debaters, and nothing more. When applying this to framework/role of the ballot arguments, it means that I will view the round through whatever lens the debaters persuade me to.

I tend to default to competing interpretations on theory issues out of common practice, but would be happy to use any other framing if it’s well-warranted.

Although most of my background in debate is with kritiks, I don’t think that means that I’m biased either for or against the kritik. Moreover, while I’m familiar with most kritikal arguments deployed in debate rounds, there are some authors that I am more comfortable with than others. If you are afraid that this will influence your ability to win my ballot, feel free to ask me about specific arguments/authors before the round. Keep in mind that it is always expected that your analysis goes deeper than jargon-level description.

I’ll call for cards after the round if my decision hinges on their content or if evidence that makes conflicting claims are presented. However, I will not call for cards in order to compensate for a lack of explanation in the rebuttals.

Paperless: Prep time ends when flash drive leaves the computer, with leniency occasionally given in the event of technical mishaps and/or me being in an unusually good mood.