Bowers,+Jeremy


 * About me**: Debated 5 years (don't ask) in college at South Carolina and Cal State Chico. I take a meticulous flow and I rarely read evidence if you're unclear. I often make quick decisions, and I'm not opposed to question-and-answer after the round.


 * Points high**: (28-29.5) Humor, strategy, organization, stand-up 2AC, 2NC or 1AR, clear speed.
 * Points low**: (24-26) Rude, combative, partner-abusive, muddy delivery.


 * T or procedurals**: Yes, but invest some time in it. I dig well-written shells with clear violations and involved standards debates. You're in bad shape your idea of a theory debate is a 15-second "dispo-bad" extension in the 1AR with zero specific reasoning showing up in the 2AR as a silver bullet.


 * Performance**: Sure, but I'm pretty much a blank slate. This means you've got to go the extra mile in explaining your warrants. I just restarted judging after 6 years out, so I missed a lot of the evolution and development in this sphere.


 * Framework**: I don't like it. Really, I don't. It's not even that I lean Aff or Neg, but I just think that a well-developed impact or implications debate probably obviates the need to read "debate is good" cards. Translation: Don't expect to win a debate on technical execution on the framework debate. Christ, I think I might finally be old enough to have an actual bias.


 * Critiques**: I'm a sucker for a good critique debate. I particularly enjoy hyper-specific links and a good answer to the question, "what does the ballot do?" I do not enjoy generic or topic-only links, and I'm really going to write curse words on my flow if you're reading a non-systemic impact (capitalism causes Middle East instability and war, judge!).


 * Critiques of T or Disads**: Sure? But you'll need to do a pretty darn good job of the endgame, especially if you're critiquing a procedural. When in doubt, be specific.


 * Disad/Counterplan**: I can dig it. I've always enjoyed good permutation debates and haven't met a politics internal link that I don't like. I don't like poorly worded counterplan texts, and I'm probably going to lean Aff on counterplan theory like PICs, conditionality and multiple counterplans.


 * Case debate**: Yes, but it better be offense, and it better be diverse. Nothing in the world is better than a good handful of case turns and disads to individual advantages. Nothing in the world is worse than a long, repetitive block of presses dumped "on the solvency flow."