Holland,+Patrick

I am currently a junior debating for Georgetown Day School.

Just some miscellaneous information first: -This will be my first time judging so all of my opinions aren’t set in stone, if you don’t agree with a few of the things I’ve written here, don’t worry, I evaluate a number of different issues in a debate so if you don't do one of the things I like I will not automatically vote for the other team. -I can flow pretty much anyone out there but please be clear. I won't yell at you if I can’t understand you, but I will let you know that you need to fix your spreading during the speech. -I've gone for the K and policy arguments in the past and have read both policy and kritikal affs so I'll evaluate both forms of arguments equally. You can run performance affs or go for the politics da and I'll be fine.

Since I haven't judged much I don't have many preferences but these are some basic things you should be aware of. Classified my opinions based on argument.

Disads: If you do not justify your link well on the disad I will probably vote aff. I view links as the most important part of the da debate so if you screw it up you will lose. Your links also should probably be intrinsic. You need to do impact calc on the da as well. If I'm left with an aff impact and a neg impact I will probably default aff. If you forget to frame your impact you will not be in good shape even if your impact is the worst of the two ‘in real life’.

Counterplans: Be reasonable with your counterplans. I think that counterplans should be both textually and functionally competitive and although I will hear out defenses of your CP’s competition your arguments need to be really good for me to evaluate it. If you're on the aff, my advice would be to go for the perm in front of me (if its reasonably feasible). I’m a sucker for a well-executed perm.

Kritiks: I mostly go for the K at the moment so you can throw anything you want at the other team and I will be able to understand your jargon. For the neg, I think that K's need to have reasonable links; you should go out of your way to make me understand why the aff links to your Kritik and why their plan/reps are going to make me sad or are currently making me sad. If you fail to do this I will not vote for you. I'm also not much of a fan of K tricks like floating piks, ect... In my opinion the neg needs to justify why their value to life claims come first even if the other team doesn't indict this framework. Basically, what I’m saying is have a framework and do impact calculus, this will make me happy.

Topicality: I won't be willing to do the work of the neg here to figure out a way the aff is not topical. The neg needs to actually be right in order to win. Reasonability is not an argument in my opinion so don't say, "You should vote on reasonability because we're reasonable" (Yes this happens in every T debate I'm ever a part of).

Theory: I will vote on any theory if the other team drops it, even No Neg Fiat. I'm not much of a fan of Conditionality and I think the aff gets away with it too often so I won't vote on this very regularly but if the neg runs an unreasonable amount of CPs or the aff argues it very well I will.

Kritikal Affirmatives: I'm pretty much a blank slate in terms of K affs. I'm familiar with them since I've run them in my time as a debater but I can vote either way here. I think that K aff's can be legitimate and I often agree with them so I will not give the neg an auto win by any means if you run it. Nevertheless I'll evaluate any framework argument from the neg if it is debated well. If you're on neg against a K aff your best bet, in front of me, would be to go for some form of counter advocacy in addition to framework.

If you have any questions about my judging philosophy feel free to email me at HCLcoasters@gmail.com.