Wilkes,+Adam

Affiliation: @ Binghamton University Debate History: First-year debater I am experienced more in critical theory than debating the technical specifics of policy, but I will consider all arguments equally contingent upon the explanation provided by the debaters themselves. For example, if the Aff has a nuclear war impact that is conceded or unanswered by the Neg, I'll vote Aff unless the Neg not only responds but dismantles the basis of the nuclear war impact. This can be framework, or specificity, as long as there is some explanation. I will not judge the quality of links, the debaters will have to attack or defend those themselves. Framework is important to me. A debate about the framing of debate may be frustrating to have but is logically critical. Dispute the fiat mechanisms successfully and I will vote on a deviant framework, and vice-versa, dispute the lack of a plantext and/or affirmation statement and I will vote on it. Same concept with Roll of the Ballot arguments. R.O.B. will get you far when I'm judging, and I will consider them first - if they go undisputed I will probably vote on them. Have fun.