Erlanger,+Paul

I debated for four years for Byram Hills High School, in NY. I attended TOC and was an Octafinalist my senior year. I now attend New York University. I no longer hold strong views on debate, so read whatever you do best.

Theory: I enjoy evaluating theory debates.
 * Defaults** (only if no argument is made, either way, this does not mean I prefer these arguments): Truth Testing, Competing Interps, Drop the Debater, Text of the Interp, No RVI (this is pretty obvious RVI's require justifications), Meta-Theory first.

OCI's require RVI's except for AFC bad.

K's: I also like evaluating K debates as long as I understand them. That being said I am more receptive to topical K affs then those that are not topical. I also default that theory constrains the role of the ballot unless an argument is made why this is not true.

Larp: Sure, the more creative the better.

Update: Due to messy theory debates with no weighing, if there are two shells with no weighing and a debater is winning each shell I will default to quantity of abuse weighing, meaning I will default to the shell with less ink on it. This is only in very particular circumstances and this is not to say that I prefer this weighing to any other theoretical weighing claims I just believe it is the least interventionist.

Update: I will evaluate spikes only if they have justification. I don't think it is my place as a judge to judge on the veracity or extent of justification of an argument if your opponent does not respond; however, if the spike is a mere tag without any resemblance of a warrant I will not vote on it.