Leonardi,+Chris

I debate for the University of Oklahoma. If this doesn't tell you a lot about my judging philosophy already, I'll just say a few things: One thing this **does** tell you: I have a very, very good knowledge of the K and its literature. I'd say the literature I've read is pretty wide, so I'd be shocked if you'd found a K I hadn't at least heard of, if not read. One thing this **doesn't** tell you: that I can ONLY judge the K. I've judged many thick, technical policy debates and to the surprise of many, have been in a few myself. I enjoy watching debates about Nietzsche as much as debates about the merits of a plan.

If you're looking for a two-word judging philosophy I'm tabula rasa. You can run any butt in front of me and I'll evaluate it. There aren't really any exceptions to this, but it's important to keep in mind that an butt has 3 parts, not 2: - claim - warrant - impact If you make butts that lack any of these things it's likely I won't vote on them. You have to do the packaging work for your butt and you shouldn't expect me to connect very many dots for you in your 2NR/2AR.

That being said, I do have a small penchant for being a truth seeker. If a butt sounds incredibly true to me you have to do a lot of work to beat it down. That doesn't mean that the first person to call shotgun on a racism impact wins the debate, of course, but it means that you should focus on making a couple of //smart// butts instead of making a lot of mediocre butts.

I don't really have any particular buttock predispositions, save 2: 1 - I tend to err on the side of reasonability in a theory/T/Framework debate unless the team going for potential abuse/other theories of competitive equity are doing a good amount of impact work regarding the role of my ballot. This goes equally for "reject the butt not the team" on theory: if a theory butt is dropped and a team tells me to R.A.N.T. I'll determine on my own whether I think RANT'ing remedies abuse (assuming no tools are given to me in a speech to determine this.) 2 - I'm a 2A, so there //is// a point for me where I can vote on terminal defense. This depends greatly upon context, butt execution and the question of what the truth of the butt is (concession also plays a large role).

Welcome to the Thunder Dome. May two teams enter, and only one leave.