Boyd,+Amy

Overall my philosophy can be summed up in the phrase “do what you do and do it well.” This means I try to keep my predispositions on arguments out of the debate and let the debaters debate. One caveat to this statement: Be respectful to those present in the room whether judge, fellow competitor, or observer. This includes language, both verbal and nonverbal. If you choose to engage in performance, please keep this caveat in mind. My experience: I debated for four years for the Liberty University debate team. During that time, I engaged in a wide array of arguments. I graduated with a Bs in Biochemistry and molecular biology with a minor in psychology and chemistry. T: I ran it a lot and will vote on it if the negative team wins it. I tend to think the difference between potential abuse and real abuse is moot. If you are topical, then you should be able to make all the no links on positions that don't link to your plan. To beat abuse/potential abuse in front of me, just prove the negative team has no right to the ground for which they are asking. Framework: I can be persuaded either way on framework, but I lean toward the use of the USFG as a good limit for debate. I do not appreciate large overviews that are used in place of on point line by line answers. PICS: I enjoy well crafted PICs with nuanced net benefits. I generally think a good limit for PICs is specific solvency evidence. Conditionality: I really don't have an innate predisposition toward either side of the condo debate unless the positions directly contradict themselves. I.e. running a k that links to the cp and saying that's okay because they are both condo. DAs: I can appreciate a DA debate when the DA is not a ship-shod shell in the 1nc with the link randomly asserted, when the k is well developed in the block, and when the k has a clear uniqueness, link, and impact story in the final rebuttal. K: I can appreciate a k debate when the k is not a ship-shod shell in the 1nc, when the k is well developed in the block, and when the k has a clear link, impact, and alternative story in the final rebuttal. I appreciate explanation of how I am to interpret the K in round, but I will not cross apply this explanation to answer the line by line. I am better versed in Foucault and Mackinnon. Performance: I appreciate clear explanation of how to evaluate the performance at the end of the round. I will not look favorably on performances that could result in arrest if performed outside of the round. If you have questions about a particular performance and whether it will be offensive, ask me before the round. Speaker Points: I award good speaker points for smart arguments, well thought out and executed strategies, and good cx questions and answers.