Gaither,+Kinsee

I debated for Bingham High School in Utah for 4 year, debated at Gonzaga and now currently debate for Weber State University

As a general summary of my judging philosophy I think that debaters should do what they want and I just want it to be well explained and executed well.

I tend to think that conditionality is fine and that most theory arguments are just reasons to reject the argument and not the team. However that does not mean that I am opposed to voting for it if you decide that it is your best option to go for theory. I don't find most of the theory arguments on the politics disad. (ie. fiat solves the link, bottom of the docket) are not the most compelling arguments to make in front of me.
 * Theory**

I really don't have a preference what kind of counterplan that you read in front of me. If you are reading a complicated process/PIC/plank CP, I prefer that you take a second in the debate to explain all the parts of the CP and how they resolve the aff. I do prefer that you have a specific solvency advocate for the affirmative. I am not a huge fan of consult counterplans and prefer that you do not read them in front of me. That being said if you think that you have some sweet consult cards for an aff, feel free to go for it. I will not reject the counterplan for the negative unless it is explicitly stated in the 2NR. When you are aff I think that your solvency deficits need to be well articulated and explain how it implicates the solvency counterplan. I think that permutation explanations need to be consistent between the 1AR and the 2AR, I have noticed in debates when the 1AR just extends the "permutation" with no explanation and then the 2AR gets up and waxes poetically about how the permutation solves everything, and I am not about that.
 * Counterplans **

I think that when you are neg there needs to be good turns case analysis instead of just asserting at the top of the flow that it "outweighs and turns the case". Other than that I don't really have a preference about disad debates. When you are aff I think that the link turn needs to be very well explained as well as "case solves the DA" analysis.
 * Disadvantages**

I am fine with the K, it was never my argument of choice as a 2N but with the aff that we read last year and my experience in college, I have since become more familiar with k debates. I think that if you are going for a root cause argument then it needs to be explained in context of aff impacts. I think that the link story is a lot more compelling if it is specific to the affirmative, general overarching claims ie. "they constructed a threat somewhere" is not very compelling in front of me. I generally default that the aff gets to weigh their impacts against the K, unless the negative makes a reason why I shouldn't. I also am not a fan of the 6 minute overview, just because it is a k debate that doesn't mean that line by line goes out the window. I also appreciate when permutations are answered individually instead of the classic "group the perms". On the aff I think that the framework arguments about why it needs to be a competitive policy option and that K's should not be allowed, are not very compelling.
 * The K**

I read a k aff my senior year and I enjoy listening to them but I do prefer that they have topic relevance, but you do not need to defend fiat if you think that is what works best with your aff. I also need explanation of your advocacy, don't just assume that I understand all of your k jargon. I also think that if you are going to read an plan text/advocacy statement you need to choose if you are going to defend it or not. I have seen many times when a team will sort of defend it to mitigate offense on framework and then defend no part of it if there was also a disad read in the debate, stop toeing the line and just pick a side.
 * K affs **

I really enjoy framework debates, and it was my argument of choice as a 2N, however I prefer that the debate is less about "well you are making debate unfair" and more about why their method is ineffective and unproductive. I used to think that all teams should defend a plan and fiat but over the past couple of years I have become a lot more open to non-fiated affs and I think that they are interesting debates to watch.
 * Framework**

I tend to think that most affs are at least reasonably topical. I think that in order to get my ballot on t questions there needs to be a clear impact. I think that to get my ballot when going for t, there just needs to be a reason why I should care about your interpretation. That being said I am still open to voting for t if it is executed correctly.
 * Topicality**