Suh,+Jesse

__Background__
I debated for MBA in high school and I now debate for Northwestern University. I judged at the NU institute over the summer, so I have a basic understanding of the topic. I went for all types of arguments in high school and still do in college.

__Short__
I think debate's primary value comes from it being a competitive activity, so I will vote on any argument if you clearly articulate why it warrants my ballot. I will do my best to limit my intervention in the round as much as possible, but I would be wrong to say I have no ideological preferences. My preferences, however, shouldn't deter you from going for what you're good at as long as the argument has been explained.

__Meta-views__

 * There can be zero-risk of arguments** - This doesn't mean I ignore risk assessment completely. I imagine I will evaluate relative risk in most rounds (i.e. risk of the disadvantage v. the advantage), but you have to meet the basic threshold of an argument. For example, if there is no evidence in a politics DA that says "political capital key" and the affirmative points this out, I would be willing to assign zero risk rather than just reduce it.


 * I default to prioritizing the link over questions of uniqueness**


 * Speed is good, but be clear** - In tags and cards. I'll say "clear" once and stop flowing if you're still not clear.


 * Most theoretical objections are a reason to reject the argument** - conditionality being an exception


 * Evidence is just another part of an argument** - I won't evaluate unexplained warrants in an extended card. That being said, if you emphasize evidence as a reason why an argument is more convincing, the card has to actually be good.

__Specific Arguments__

 * Topicality** - only a reason to vote neg. Impact comparison should come down to how interpretations affect a vision of debate. This usually leads to an evaluation of limits even if they're called something else. I can be convinced that the aff can win that topicality is not a reason to vote neg because the counter-interpretation provides reasonable limits on the topic


 * Counterplans**- Issues of competition are up for debate, but I sympathize with the aff when counterplan competition is derived from further specification of the plan text. Competition is more convincing for counterplans that result in the plan when there is supporting literature. I think it's logical when evaluating policy decisions to assume a singular agent. In other words, I may be easier to convince than others that non-USFG counterplans are theoretically illegitimate and not an opportunity cost of the plan.


 * Kritiks -** They're fine. Negs who make __intelligent__ framework presses can influence how I evaluate aff impacts. I don't think there are many convincing arguments on the aff that kritiks should be rejected from debate. Explain critical terms if you expect them to matter in your final rebuttal.


 * Non-traditional Debate** - I haven't judged much of these debates, but I'll evaluate these arguments like any other.