Dasher,+Grant

=Dasher, Grant Philosophy=

I'm currently a software engineer at Google in Cambridge, MA. I graduated from Harvard in '09. During college, I didn't debate but did judge a number of rounds on various topics. Since graduating, I have gotten back into the activity as a judge and occasional coach for the Boston Debate League. When I was in high school, I debated for 4 years for Edina High School (MN). We traveled a fair bit nationally and had some national success.

My general rule is that I have certain predispositions, which I try to outline below, but am willing to vote on any argument that is not blatantly offensive or a cheapshot theory voter so long as it is well-explained and impacted.


 * Familiarity with Topic:** I've judged a number of rounds on this topic, but they have been in the BDL, so I'm a little rusty the subtitles of this topics topicality violations and the latest politics scenarios. I follow the news pretty closely though, so you can assume general knowledge of the relevant issues that could be turned into politics stories. However, it is your job as a debater to explain the details of your story. I'm likely to give you a strange look if I'm not following, so you should take that as a cue to adapt and re-explain yourself.


 * Strategy:** I like debaters to go for positions that they're most comfortable with and believe will be most effective in helping them win the debate. That said, my general predisposition is towards strategies revolving around a good disad and either case defense or a counterplan. Good disads include politics, so long as the link story is contextualized specifically to the case and not just generic evidence saying that anti-poverty programs are unpopular.


 * Ks:** They're fine as long as you explain what they mean and how they interact with the case. Similar to politics DAs, a specific link scenario and clearly explained impact/alternative are essential for winning a K debate. As I'm not particularly versed in portions of the literature, please make sure to explain your arguments in detail.


 * Theory:** I HATE cheapshots and hidden voting issues. I will not vote on them unless they are conceded throughout the round. If you hide a "voting issue" with an explanation < 5 seconds and it is missed for one speech, I'm highly unlikely to vote on it if the other team responds to it later in the round. That said, I'm a big fan of topicality debates when done well. I generally believe that the burden is on the negative to prove that the aff UNLIMITS the topic, but can be persuaded to follow different standards if the negative wins them (or they are conceded).