Agnew,+Eric

Debate Expertise: I did policy for 4 years in high school. I also took third at State in Idaho my junior year.. While I may be experienced in actually doing policy, I've only judged around 15 rounds on this year's topic. Also if you're reading this and you're competing at Berkeley, keep in mind that this is the first TOC circuit tournament I've judged, so give me a little time to adjust if you have me in the earlier rounds of the tournament.

As for my paradigm, my only advice is to do what is most strategic. Most people would interpret this as tab, I make my decision based off of what you tell me to vote on, and I'm generally pretty good at keeping judge intervention at the minimum. I don't care what arguments you want to run as long as you articulate your impact scenario well, and tell me why I should vote on it. It's really difficult for me to evaluate any kritikal impact scenario, no matter how much work you put on it, unless you win framework. As far as speed goes, I’d say I can effectively follow a 7/10 and I’d prefer it if you slowed down a little on tags and authors. If you are reading anything with novel-length tag-lines, make sure you slow it down enough so that I can at least catch the main point of your card. Other than that, it's your round. Have some fun with it.

Case debate: I don't undervalue the case debate like a lot of judges can do, the majority of my debating career was done in a community that frowned upon kritiks and my skills as a debater reflected that. I love a lot of case turns and offense from the neg, and I love an abundance of advantages on the aff. The case debate is my favorite.

Disads/Counterplans: If the round is going to be straight policy, I like to hear whatever's strategic by the neg. What you decide is "strategic" is up to you, but I really enjoy a good debate of competitive policy options. While I don't mind generic disads and CP's, I really like hearing ultra-specific arguments and I generally just like good clash. I can't stand generic disad defense in the neg block though, so make sure you have a heavy amount of work done on the link and impact debate

Kritik: I really like to hear good kritik debate, but I tend to get sick of hearing rehashed stuff like Cap over and over again. I evaluate the K almost like T in a lot of aspects, tell me why I should care about it. I like performance/methodology type kritiks quite a bit, it makes the framework debate pretty interesting. Extremely engaging narratives and meaningful reasons to vote on the kritik are very entertaining for me. I want to know why my ballot actually matters. I'm pretty well-versed for the most part in kritik literature, just make sure you articulate it enough and I'll catch on easily enough.

I’ve never been very effective when it comes to flowing T/FW, so if you are reliant on these arguments just make sure to be clear and stay organized on the line by line.

Topicality-I'll vote on T, but only if the abuse scenario is articulated enough. Just tell me why I should care that the aff is untopical, and extend your abuse scenario in the rebuttals.

Framework: After the 1AC is read, I'll interpret the round to be based off the framework of the plan text or the plan advocacy until the neg tells me to do differently. If you read a kritik, keeping framework clear will be essential.

Theory:I'm fine with theory, but I can't say that I enjoy it. This is mainly because most teams read it as a time skew and it's a bitch to flow. You can read it, but I better be able to flow it.

I'm pretty excited to judge some good debates this year, so let's keep the round civil and fun. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask me before the round and I'd be happy to clarify.