Hochberg,+Mitchel

Mitchel Hochberg Glenbrook North/Georgetown University

I haven't judged that much, so I don't have strong preferences in terms of arguments or ways of evaluating them.

Potentially useful things: -Impact and explain arguments, tell me how they interact with other arguments and why they mean you win. It makes your debating better and voting for you easier. -If you're going for theory/topicality spend time explaining why it's a reason to reject the team -I have an unhealthily broad interpretation of the scope of neg fiat in terms of counterplans. That doesn't mean I won't reject cps or vote on theory, but I'm probably more willing to listen to intuitive advantage cps without solvency advocates than most judges. -I've gone for pretty much every genre of neg argument so I'm decently comfortable evaluating all of them -The exception would be narrative/project-style affs. I've had a lot of these debates from the other side, so I'm not unfamiliar with the content. Still not sure I'd be the best for these rounds, but you could pref me and we'd find out.