Hoth,+Andrew

**Overview** Hey all, I'm Andrew Hoth. I debated at Capital High in Boise for 3 years, and am currently a freshman at Idaho State University. I'm fairly new to judging, but I'm probably familiar enough with your arguments to judge effectively. I'll go by type of argument here, but when in doubt just remember that I'm generally tabula rasa with a preference toward kritikal and performance argument. However, I will vote as I am told, and you'll win the debate on impact framing no matter what your 1AC/1NC is.

**Topicality** Generally speaking, I don't necessarily believe that the affirmative has to defend a topical plan implemented by the USFG. Negative teams will definitely have an uphill battle winning T debates, and my threshold for voting is fairly high. I'm not easily persuaded by "potential abuse" arguments. If you want to go for this in your 2NR, your best option is to have a list of arguments that are excluded and a topical version (or multiple) version of the plan, AND reasons why those are necessary for debate. "We lose the Spending DA" doesn't cut it for me.

**CP/DAs vs Case** In terms of plan-focus policy debate, I'm more likely to vote here than on Topicality. Definitely do your impact winning, and I do value defense more than most judges. "risk of a link" is a last-ditch argument, and shouldn't be the focal point of your 2NR/2AR. I do think winning a no-link argument, especially if it is true given the aff/cp, is enough to make a DA go away. Also, I find the politics and spending DAs hopelessly non-unique, and the 1A can score major speaks with me just by answering "How much does your plan cost" with "enough to be substantial, but not enough to trigger your spending DA". WEIGH YOUR IMPACTS. That's what these debates come down to, and not just your number of horrible nuclear war scenarios that don't change anything

**Framework** As noted earlier, I don't stand by the philosophy that an aff must defend a plan implemented by the USFG. By the same token, Negatives are generally free to win by criticisms of the other team's implications, rather than just advantages that never come true anyways. Essentially, framework debates are probably the hardest argument to win with me, and don't rely on potential abuse here. I've seen dozens of excellent K vs K debates, or even just have a defense of why your methodology is good. You better have a good reason why the K should be excluded, and it better include a lot of lost ground, topical affs, and other arguments to challenge the affirmative or negative. Not every DA links to every aff, and I don't care that you can't run spending.

**Kritiks** Definitely my favorite part of debate. I would love nothing more than to see an excellent K on K showdown, especially if it is made of issues that actually concern me. I'm mostly up on the jargon, although some of the wankiest K's I will get lost in. If I don't understand it, I'm not going to vote for it. Just because you said "zero point of holocaust" doesn't mean I automatically know how the affirmative's impact justifications should be rejected. Build your ethos, slow down in the block, and really explain to me the links. Remember, you start ahead on the framework debate, so cut time there if you need more on the K.

**Theory** First off, theory debates are pretty much flipping a coin in the first place. They are hard to flow, and usually muddled through by both teams. That being said, I think they are excellent weapons to be used by both sides, and I'm more than willing to vote on your theoretical objection. Don't expect high speaks though, and have actual in-round abuse. "Reject the argument, not the team" will go a long way with me.

**Other stuff** Time your own stuff. You should have a timer. Write in on the whiteboard. If you truly want me to, I'll time it, but I'd rather spend time thinking about your decision. Plus I'm generally bad at keeping track of speech times. I don't time roadmaps. Go as fast as you need to. I can keep up. Do not spew though; if I don't understand it, I won't flow it, and I won't vote on it. If you want an alternative flowing method, just say so. I'll only flow that way for your team though. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.727272033691406px;">Finally, just don't be an asshole. We're all here to have fun and debate, not to verbally abuse each other. While I'm totally fine with sarcasm in cross-x or whatever, don't be at each other's throats. Show up on time. If you do that, I think we'll all have fun.