Mi,+Brandon


 * Judge Affiliation:** New Trier / Niles


 * Getting good speaker points and winning the round-**
 * I like good analytical arguments. Explain and impact your arguments and evidence. ** ** If you read a bunch of cards but don't explain their value, they becomes worthless. **** An example: t **urns case arguments are important, but not as important as winning a big risk of the argument. If there’s a 20% risk of the DA and I think it turns the entire case, then you still need to reduce the risk of the case to at least 40% before I’ll vote neg solely on that argument. Be clear, smart, don’t drop stuff, reference and indict their evidence in speeches, use cross-ex effectively.

I’m okay with you being mean as long as you’re right about whatever argument you’re making fun of. If you’re wrong, and you try to make fun of them anyway, it doesn’t look very good. Outside of speeches and cross-ex, be nice. If the other team is prepping and asks you about an argument you made, answer them. Give back evidence if they ask for it. Rebuttals are not constructives - if the 2AR overextrapolates arguments from the 1AR I won't consider those arguments - warrants need to be extended, not introduced.

I’ll default to a competing interpretations paradigm. Which means: if I think that the neg’s interpretation is better at the end of the debate, even if it’s only a little bit better, I’ll vote negative. Of course, this is arguably kind of dumb, which is why you should make reasonability arguments if you’re aff. I think there are good and bad ways to make reasonability arguments. A bad example of a reasonability argument is “do a gut check and if you think we’re topical then vote aff.” If you’re asking me to do a gut check at the end of the round I may do a gut check and vote negative. A better example of a reasonability argument is “it’s not enough for the negative to win that their interpretation is a little better. They should have to win significant abuse, which avoids substantive crowd-out and a race to the bottom that arbitrarily excludes our aff.”
 * Topicality-**

In most debates I don’t think education and fairness need any external impact. You may want to make arguments about why one turns or outweighs the other, but if your impact analysis ends with “and that’s unfair” that’s probably okay.

Although I went for Heidegger a lot senior year, I don't like most kritiks and think that it is ridiculous some critical literature is applied to debate. However, I don't have any biases when voting for kritiks. Entering the round, I probably won't already have a complete knowledge of the criticism you are running, so be sure to define any key terms you think I might not understand. That said, my preferences are as follows:
 * Kritiks-**

On the aff – perm, no alt, and case outweighs. Especially the perm. If the link the the aff isn’t really specific, I’ll probably think a good perm solves it.

On the neg – lots of impact analysis and turns case arguments. I generally think you should use framework as a reason why you get the alt and they don’t get the perm. Winning that the aff doesn’t get to weigh their case is more of an uphill battle.