Ontiveros+Patty

attempt to take a “tabula rasa” approach to judging all styles of debate, so that the debaters are free to use their own thought processes to develop and advance their arguments. However, in debate styles whose purpose is to promote a policy, then I will be inclined to incorporate cost-benefit into my analysis of the debate, and would tend not to vote in favor of an argument that clearly would not be feasible. Also, when applicable, I like good evidence and examples. I do not like spreading.