Salas+Briana

I've been judging policy debate since I graduated three years ago, I've judged at Nationals once, and spent most weekends of the school year judging

I would say I'm fairly flexible as a judge, I will evaluate the round with the framework set for me: that debate is for you to have and just because you "win framework" doesn't mean you get my ballot, it just means that's the lens through which I will view the round

Theory is next on my priority list, it can win or lose the round if it is given the correct amount of importance

Topicality is not my favorite argument, but I will vote on it, I just prefer not having to unless it is just blatantly non-topical - this excludes critical affs with a proper framework HOWEVER it should be pertinent (also I get that this opens me up as a judge that teams are probably always going to run critical args, don't exclude your great policy cases and on case arguments, I like variety)

After these pre-fiat args my paradigm is fairly standard Counter plans and case go head to head DAs v Ads The usual

Any more specific paradigm questions can always be asked in round or emailed to me brianasalas94@gmail