Jamison,+Andrew

I am open to all styles of debate--fast, slow, techy, holistic, policy, critical, whatever--just tell me how to evaluate the round. I default to being an offense-defense policymaker. Make sure to do all necessary analysis and work; I am disinclined to sort through a mess of blips and piece together an argument. All arguments should be impacted out, and case-specific arguments are likely to get you better speaks.

Topicality/theory: I tend to have a higher threshold for voting on T, believing the aff should have some leeway with their case. If you plan on going for it, the argument should be well warranted, organized, and clean. The neg will almost always need to win competing interpretations for me to look at T. I err neg on most other theory. Specs, vagueness arguments, plan flaws, and minor repairs I tend to believe are non-issues.

Disads/advantages: I like lots of impact calculus and comparison, and am more willing to vote for a single well warranted and impacted scenario than a laundry list. I am willing to grant a risk of a link unless there is crushing defense.

Counterplans: I'll let the debaters decide which and how many CP's are and aren't legitimate. I think the neg needs to explicitly mention judge conditionality if they want me to look at the squo and a CP. Net benefits and solvency deficits should be compared.

Critiques: I am fine with them on aff and neg, but I would really like to know what I am voting for. I'm not very sympathetic towards shifty alts that don't have a text.

Evidence: preferred. Will call for the least number of cards necessary.