Borrows,+Clayton

**Background**
I debated for four years at Olathe Northwest High School (KS) and am currently at the University of Kansas (not debating). I dig a good DA + CP + case debate, but I'm good with most arguments as long as they are well analyzed and argued. I would describe myself as a "policymaker". However, I will vote for anything that has tangible impacts and is well analyzed (more on this in the specific args down below). Also, for added insight, I have been told that my philosophy is similar to people like Tim Ellis (so I've been told), Luke Hartman, Jessica Skoglund, Eric Skoglund, and Matt Michie (with the last 3 being the biggest influences on me during my debate career).

Rounds judged (China topic): 21

**General Things**

 * I like impacts, any and all impacts. You can win a "smaller" real world impact against a terminal scenario if you do a better job with impact calc and comparative impact work.
 * I value good strategic decisions and understand when you have to do something "crazy" in order to win. I would identify as a gamesplayer, but I don’t see “gamesplayer” as a paradigm – it doesn’t help evaluate the round at all; it only shows I like strategic things that make the debate interesting and competitive.
 * I view cross-x as an important part of the debate (this mostly stems from my affair with PFD). It holds strategic value in the sense that I believe CX is apart of the debate, I will not flow it, but if you concede something in the CX the other team can use that in their strategy. It will also play into quality points/speaker points.
 * I dislike "card wars". Don't just read cards - make arguments. Solid pieces of evidence along with solid analytical arguments make for the best clash, and the best debates.
 * I'm willing to assign 100% risk to nearly all dropped arguments, //but you still have to extend those arguments and their respective warrant(s)//.
 * I love debate and everything about it. I will 100% try my hardest to make a good and equitable decision, and If you have any questions about my decisions please email me @ cborrows@ku.edu

Speed

 * I would appreciate slowing down a little bit for tags, and slower when reading theory or really long tags. Other than that feel free to speak at whichever speed you like. I will say clear until it’s obvious you don’t care/aren’t willing to change the way you’re talking.

Topicality

 * I was and still am not a huge fan of topicality. I have a comparatively high threshold on pulling the trigger on T if it is a good debate. However, this is not a free pass to run anything you want on the aff. If you mishandle the T flow and aren't responsive to the other team's args, then I will easily pull the trigger if it is well analyzed and argued in the 2NR. // Remember, I have to actually be able to write down the things you're saying to ensure that I make the correct decision, so please please please do not blow through your T blocks at full speed. //
 * CPs + DAs**
 * CPs were my go to argument when I debated. I generally find PICs not compelling with appropriate theoretical response.
 * Topic specific (with good links) and case specific DAs are good to have (not a huge fan PTX, but just like anything else I will vote for it if it is properly ran).

Ks

 * I ran various Ks while I debated, but I am not well versed in K literature. I find t he alternative to be really important to me in evaluating a kritik, and a thoroughly explained alternative gives you a lot of weight. Additionally, I need impact work. For example, if you read Ableism, you need to tell me why rhetoric is more important than the aff's impact. Also, I generally side with aff on the question of "does the aff get to weight their impact against the K", but if the aff drops the arg or isn't responsive then I will side with the neg. PLEASE feel free to ask me specific questions about Ks before the round.

Theory

 * This category is kinda similar to Ks for me: I would say my threshold for you running theory is higher than average. I need to see actual clash here and analysis on your voters/impacts. Reading your PICs good frontline after they read their PICs bad frontline gives me a debate where I'm unlikely to vote.

** Miscellaneous: **

 * I am not going to ask for any cards after the round, or any speech docs. Never ask me to call for a card after the round during a speech, if you can’t convince me of the card’s warrants yourself then you’re probably gonna lose that debate anyway. At maximum, I will ask for a CP text or a Plan text.
 * Clipping cards is unethical and not okay. If I happen to discover that cards were clipped in the debate you will be very sad.
 * Advantage CPs with Heg turns and Dedev were my fav neg arguments and I generally ran a combination of Heg, Warming, SV, and any good extinction scenarios on the aff.