Travis,+Kevin

5th Year Coach at Dunwoody High School; debated four years at Fayette County High School Paradigm: I am probably as close to a tabula rasa judge that you can get. I am willing to listen to any argument as long it is well-impacted and argued. But tabula rasa also means you need to clearly explain to me every major argument on the flow. While I’m not ignorant you should not assume just because you said the word “politix” or “capitalism” that I, and everybody else in the round magically understands your story. Teams that pick up my ballot are usually the ones that slow down and take the time to explain their Advantage, DA, and K stories. Speaking- **// I need really clear tags, authors and dates. //** I’m not going to say “clear” I just won’t flow you. If I don’t flow you, you can’t win. Many debaters who have me as their judge will lose speaker points and arguments because they rattle off 5 separate voters in a 3 second span. I simply cannot keep up with that speed. I hate rude people, so don’t be rude; your speaks will suffer. K- I have no problem with Kritiks as long as they are well-run and well-explained. There is nothing worse, however, than a badly run K. I typically prefer alternatives that are actually realistic; no BS about how changing my mindset creates real world change. Policy Ks will work a lot better with me. Framework- I come from a pure policy background so I am going to err policy on framework debate; but I will vote on a kritikal framework when well argued. T- I have a very high threshold for any type of SPEC argument. I am much more likely to weigh an FX T or an Extra T. For most T, the Neg will need to show some type of legitimate in-round abuse. Generic Arguments- I am incredibly bored by generic arguments (i.e. states CP, with a Politix DA). While I will not vote you down for running them, I just would prefer to hear something more original and specific to the Aff case. The same thing goes for the Affirmative; I prefer unique affirmatives with interesting advantages. Theory- I am probably one of the few judges in the world who will actually vote a team down on Condo Bad if it is argued well enough. I’m fine with theory arguments, just don’t run stupid stuff and waste my time. Finally, I place high value on dropped arguments. If one team can give me a really easy way out of the round, that is going to increase the chance of that team picking up a W.