Behrent,+Savannah

Affiliation: Monticello High School

In high school I debated Policy on both the regional and national circuit. I have little experience in the LD or PF field but I am familiar with both styles of debate and regularly judge both.

General:
 * I am comfortable flowing almost all speeds though you do need to know that it is impossible to write down everything that you say. This being said it is critical that you enunciate and make some sort of signal that you are switching cards/arguments. Whether this is saying "next" or changing speed/tone of voice. When are you are reading T, Theory or K shells as they are all unique and usually a lot of information it is vital that you slow down so I can get the major points or voters.
 * Prep time includes everything from flashing evidence to another computer to organizing flows before your speech, do not abuse that or I will dock speaker points.
 * Clear, innovative arguments/explanations will get higher speaker points.
 * I do pay attention to cross ex and will take note if you contradict yourself/arguments.
 * I will evaluate a dropped argument if the other team capitulates upon and can properly impact it, be mindful of the flow.

Policy:
 * I will default to a consequentalist framework when making my decision in-round if there is no other framework presented. This means that I weigh arguments based on impact and real world consequences. I am not married to this framework and will adopt whatever other framework is presented.
 * For the entirety of my senior year debating, I strictly debated critical arguments. However I do tend to gravitate more towards traditional policy making and will vote for a well impacted stock case or argument over a generic kritik. I __**will**__ vote on a K as long as it is fully impacted and explained but you have to do the work.
 * I am less likely to vote for a K where the alternative is to reject the aff and rethink. There needs to be an alternative that actually does something to correct or begin to correct the ideology that the kritik is taking a stand against.
 * Topicality: This is an uphill battle when you are up against a stock case that is clearly topical. If the aff is shifty or obviously abusive to neg ground then I'm more prone to vote negative. Nine out of ten times I will and have voted on FX/Extra T if the abuse story is clear and in-round. Your sole impact story should not be potential abuse. I default to an educational/fairness impact.
 * Theory: I have a very high threshold for theory arguments. I find that more often than not they lead to judge intervention and that demolishes the point of debate. If there is an abusive argument being run in the round with a valid impact then run your theory shell but do not get up and plan to give a 1AR/2AR that is five minutes of conditionality bad, I will drop speaker points and you will likely lose. There are however always extenuating circumstances.

LD/PF: As I said already, I have limited experience with this style of debate but I understand the argumentation as many times it overlaps with policy arguments and am comfortable judging but this does not give you an excuse to debate bad policy arguments. I have a higher standard that I put arguments and evidence to and will likely call for it, shallow warrants won't fly.