Loxton,+Abby

Suggestions-- General; Run what you are most comfortable with. Speed is fine. Warrants are key. Humor is wonderful.  Case; It's underrated sometimes. I really enjoy good DEVELOPED case debates. It baffles me how some 2as fail to use their case to leverage against disads or some neg teams will just pretend huge advantages don’t exist. If Case outweighs Disad is going to be a huge part of your 2ar, you should mention case some time between the 1ac and 2ar. Likewise, if Case Solvency is Unprobable is going to be a major 2nr impact assessment, you should attack solvency before then.  T/Theory; I’ll default to competing interpretations.. I tended to run shady affs and neg strats, but I also went for shady topicality and theory arguments, so I don’t think I have a huge side bias either way. Just know if you want this to be a viable strategy in the final rebuttal, don’t wait to develop it until then. Voters must be impacted! Don’t expect to shout “abuse!” and have me sign the ballot right then and there. For a more solid theory argument, give specific reasons as to how by doing X, the other team has hindered fairness and/or education in the round and what the greater implications of that are.  Counterplans/Kritiks; They’re wonderful. i’m not one of those judges who believe the cp has to be nontopical or the counterplan can never link ot the net benefit or you can only run one counterplan in a round. Run whatever you personally are prepared to theoretically defend. as a side note, most ks are bullshit, but I ran them and will gladly vote on them. Again, just be prepared to defend your framework. And PLEASE have a specific link to the aff; I’ll be very unlikely to vote on a k that fails to prove the aff is a unique increase in whatever it is you’re critiquing.  Disadvantages; pretty basic. if affs have no offense, I will almost always grant a risk of a link to the neg team. I prefer a more sophisticated analysis than blippy “we outweigh on magnitude, timeframe, and probability!” when both teams do the same basic analysis, it doesn’t really get either team anywhere. And, let’s be real, usually you don’t outweigh on all 3. Try to control internal links to the impacts and/or argue why probability outweighs magnitude and/or turn the case.

Oh, background on me;; I debated for four years in high school on the national and the wisconsin circuit. I graduated last year (2010) and now I help several teams with research and have some topic knowledge, but I haven't judged much.  happy debating!