Picozzi,+Ben

I debated for three years in high school, and am currently in and out of my third year of debate at Stanford University.

I have judged at Greenhill this year. I have done some work on the high school topic, and have some topic knowledge where it overlaps with the college topic - for example, in the area of biofuel subsidies - but you should be clear when referencing acronyms or case lists.

I like to think that I would vote on any argument, but I realize that that is an unrealistic expectation for myself. I have tried to list as many of my biases as possible:

Theory - I lean negative on most theoretical questions with the notable exception of consultation/other plan-contingent counterplans. However, this should not deter you from making strategic choices if you think that you are ahead in the debate. Theoretical questions become much more difficult for me to evaluate when they interact with the content of the arguments they exclude. This is most often the case with frameworks which beg the question of the critique.

Counterplans/Disads - Fine. Just be sure to narrow the focus of the debate in the 2NR. Obviously specificity is important. While I could conceive of a world in which I would vote on no risk of the net benefit, this should not be your strategy against the counterplan.

I like spin. I think the debater's characterizations of evidentiary claims are often more important than the evidence on which that claim is made.

Critiques/Critical Affirmatives - Fine. My academic background is in analytical philosophy, but I have read (and have sympathies with) some continental literature. I am by no means familiar with all (or even the majority) of authors. Again, tailoring your arguments to the affirmative is important. I do not think that critiques necessarily need alternatives. If you run a critical aff, it should probably include some topical advocacy statement. A word of caution to negatives: I think that a criticism of the net benefit which links it to the aff is a solvency deficit to the counterplan, even if that counterplan would otherwise solve the aff.

Non-traditional Arguments - Fine. I am probably sympathetic to your project. However, be aware that I enjoy debate. Be sure to establish some sort of competition between your arguments and those of the other team.

More than anything else, be nice to each other.