Power,+Chris

I debate for Bishop Guertin for four years in high school, and now I debate for Rutgers. I like judging, I hope you like debating. Although some claim that making a decision tabula rasa is impossible, I think that sometimes judges find excuses to insert their personal ideology into the decision. My decisions will adapt to the debate round, and the only principle guiding said adaptation is an admittedly futile attempt to be objective about what occurred in the debate round. I will tailor my decision around what you say, not what I think, not what I think I should teach you, and not what your cards say. If an issue is unresolved at the end of the round and it is impossible to make a decision without resolving it, I will resolve said issue, but I don't think that happens that often. I think generally the issues the final rebuttals focus on should be the most important factors in my decision.

so, run arguments that enable you to excel RESOLVE ALL ISSUES for example, if someone drops an argument, tell me why they can't answer it later if you drop an argument, tell me why you can answer it later analysis > evidence creativity > convention

I like intelligence and I don't like stupidity. I like smart arguments (smart kritiks, disads, counterplans, topicality arguments, theory arguments, performances), and I don't like stupid arguments, but I decide if an argument is stupid depending on if you run it well, so if you are smart you can run anything. Strategy, speed, and clarity are virtues. Mean and nice are neutral terms to me; it is a competitive activity, but excessive extremes of either, without sufficient persuasion or intellect, generally annoy. By that I mean, I'm not judging your personality.