Barnstein,+Keith

Back in the day, I debated for four years at Maine East, and then debated for a year in College at West Georgia. I spent a couple of years helping out the Maine East team, and have done a bit of judging for them the last few years. I tend to judge 4 to 6 tournaments a topic. I haven't heard a single round on this topic (as of 11/20), but I still remember how to flow.

I tend to default to a policymaker framework, but I am willing to listen to a kritik. I think that the plan is the focus of the debate, and kritiks (and any other argument) needs to relate to the plan as written or the case as advocated. The more specific you link story, the more seriously I will take your argument. I am lazy, and will usually look for the easy way out. I do vote on topicality, but I place the burden on the negative. Teams must do more than find the most limiting definition and then say competing interpretations. I’ll also vote on theory, but fairness, predictability, and literature are all important. I am willing to give zero risk of an advantage, disad, etc. if you don’t explain it or there are major gaps in your logic, even if the other side drops it. I have yet to meet an argument that I would not at least consider voting for.