Barnes,+Mackenzie

=Background= I did 4 years of LD in high school in a largely lay area, but have some experience with circuit LD as well. In college I debated 3 years of NFA LD (a one-person policy event) for Truman State. I was a national quarterfinalist and 9th speaker at the national tournament. I have also been judging LD and policy for 4 years, so I'm familiar with each type of debate. =General stuff= Speed is okay; I'm accustomed to ~350wpm. I'll let you know if I can't understand you. Please be clear. As far as specific arguments go I try to be as non-intervening as I can. I've voted for arguments I disagreed with or didn't like that were effectively warranted out in the round. That being said, everybody has some bias. I really like a well-told structural impact story and I tend to dislike really long-term impacts or impacts with vague internal links like global warming. Also, if you run arguments that are offensive like "sexism good" or "racism good" I will probably look for any excuse to give you the loss. =LD=

Value/Value criterion stuff:
I think the value and value criterion play a very specific role in LD debate (IE framework). For me, winning the v/vc debate alone doesn't mean you win the round so it's probably better to split the v/vc debate and case debate or concede the v/vc and go all in on case turns and stuff like that, you know, whatever strategy that makes sense. I don't think v/vc are necessary and I'll judge the arguments you make based on their merit in the context of the round.

Other stuff:
I'm not opposed to stuff like disads, kritiks, stuff like that in LD either, just make sure you clearly explain how your arguments function in relation to the aff case. =Policy=

Topicality and other procedurals:
I don't think I'm more or less likely to vote on these arguments than the average judge. I think they're most effective when run with some sort of impacted argument like a CP or DA to prove abuse/ground loss, although I don't necessarily need proven abuse to vote if you effectively impact out your standards. I do tend to prefer other debates to the procedural debate, and (all else being equal) if it's a question of reading/going for T versus a DA I would definitely prefer to see the DA debate.

Theory:
Yeah, sure, but it probably shouldn't be your only argument.

DAs:
There aren't really any disads I refuse to vote on or anything. I'm not particularly keen on trade off scenarios or extremely generic disads, so I'm a lot more likely to buy nunq/no link args on those than any other disad.

Counterplans:
I'm not a big cp debater myself but I think they can make for an interesting debate. Specific counterplans are really cool, and definitely a good strategy to read in front of me. As far as generic counterplans go, I tend to believe there's always some perm that can solve--sometimes it's really hard to find. Advantage and coop CPs are probably my least favorite. If it's a question of reading a generic DA or a generic CP I would definitely prefer the DA.

Case debate:
Not a stock issues judge. I think the inherency debate is my least favorite of all, and will be really irritated if you make arguments on the inherency flow unless the aff is literally already being done. I also probably won't vote on solvency defense alone in most instances, and if I do vote on solvency it probably means you messed up pretty bad. However, I do think solvency defense can be super strategic when it's paired with good off-case arguments. I also like advantage answers, even if it's just analytical. Also, I think specific case turns are really compelling and in many instances better than a disad.

Critiques:
K debate is my favorite debate both to have and to watch, and I am a frequent K debater myself. Depending on why/how you run a critique, I'm either a really great judge or really terrible judge to have. I'm pretty familiar with a lot of critical literature, particularly critiques about language and sexism/poverty/crt/queer theory stuff. I'm also familiar with anthro, securitization, cap, and terror talk (among others) and I know enough about the existential and postmodern philosophers commonly used in K debate that I'll be able to follow those easily. When in doubt, overexplain your kritik. I think you should almost always read framework. I don't think you necessarily need a really specific alt if the rest of the K is good. I like role of the ballot arguments. I'm okay with performances, and am a performance debater myself. Critical affs are fine. However, there are a few caveats. I really hate it when people run the K as a cheap shot, and if it's obvious this is why you're running the K I'm a lot less likely to vote for you than otherwise. So long as none of your arguments link, I'm okay with running some of the generic Ks with other things (like, for instance, cap with a couple disads or something) but for the most part I prefer the K to be a one-off. I also really hate it when people run a K with discursive impacts that they link to, either through their rhetoric or through reading arguments like DAs or CPs that also link to the K.